King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd [2000] ScotCS 195 (12 July 2000)

King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd [2000] ScotCS 195 (12 July 2000)

The court held that the phrase 'any other bodily injury' in Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention should not be interpreted narrowly to exclude psychological injury. Instead, it should be interpreted as covering any injury that can properly be regarded as affecting the body, which may include psychological injury if it manifests in or affects bodily health. The court rejected the argument that the adjective 'bodily' was intended to exclude all psychological or psychiatric injury, finding no convincing evidence that the signatories intended such exclusion. The court also noted that the determination of damages and heads of claim is left to domestic law, and that the Convention does not...

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 195
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Philip King; Defenders and Respondents: Bristow Helicopters Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Opinion of the Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed in part; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled to the extent specified; proof before answer allowed on certain averments.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Warsaw Convention Article 17, Carrier Liability for Psychological Injury, Damages for Personal Injury in Air Carriage, Scope of 'bodily Injury' Under International Conventions
Aviation Law International Law Tort Law Interpretation of Warsaw Convention Article 17 Carrier Liability for Psychological Injury Damages for Personal Injury in Air Carriage Scope of 'bodily Injury' Under International Conventions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip King

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Bristow Helicopters Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Opinion of the Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does 'bodily injury' in Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention include psychological or psychiatric injury?
  2. 2 Is the pursuer entitled to damages for psychological injury absent physical injury under the Convention?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the phrase 'any other bodily injury' in Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention should not be interpreted narrowly to exclude psychological injury. Instead, it should be interpreted as covering any injury that can properly be regarded as affecting the body, which may include psychological injury if it manifests in or affects bodily health. The court rejected the argument that the adjective 'bodily' was intended to exclude all psychological or psychiatric injury, finding no convincing evidence that the signatories intended such exclusion. The court also noted that the determination of damages and heads of claim is left to domestic law, and that the Convention does not...

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed in part; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled to the extent specified; proof before answer allowed on certain averments.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed in respect of averments relating to peptic ulcer disease and its connection to psychiatric injury.
  • Other averments of psychological injury excluded from probation as not falling within Article 17.