Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
The case stems from a July 2019 Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Sydney, Australia. The Canadian Press reported at the time that the flight hit severe turbulence and was forced to divert to Hawaii.
Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said.
Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention.
The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case.
The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life.
In the case of the latter, it said airlines were liable for up to 100,000 SDR for the bodily injury or death of a passenger. SDR or 'special drawing rights' is an economic unit that can be translated into any local currency; 100,000 SDR is worth about $192,000 Canadian.
The amount is examined and may be revised every five years. As of 2024 it stands at 151,880 SDR, equivalent to $277,940 Canadian.
The plaintiffs had argued that Air Canada's terms and conditions included the phrase: 'There are no financial limits in respect of death or bodily injury of passengers,' suggesting that the airline was opting out of the limit set by the Montreal Convention.
However, Lawson Hennick, founding lawyer at Hennick Law in Markham, Ont., told National Post that on closer reading of the airline's regulations and the lawsuit, the high court's decision makes sense.
'Article 25 of the Montreal Convention expressly permits carriers to agree to higher or unlimited liability,' he said. 'The court acknowledged this, noting that a carrier can raise or even eliminate the threshold at which the no-negligence defence applies.'
However, 'the court rejected this position, finding that Air Canada had not clearly waived its right to rely on the no-negligence defence.' Specifically, language in the Montreal Convention note that its liability rules 'supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent.'
Meanwhile, Air Canada's own international tariff rules note that, 'except as otherwise provided herein,' the airline 'reserves all defences available.'
Said Hennick: 'In the result, the passengers were unsuccessful in establishing that the carrier had waived the Article 21(2) defence for claims exceeding the maximum liability set out in the Montreal Convention.'
Hennick noted that the Montreal Convention, aside from its cap on liabilities, is very open-ended when it comes to injury or loss of life while flying.
'The Montreal Convention says the carrier is liable for damages sustained in the case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking,' he said. 'So if you're injured by turbulence, that's considered onboard the aircraft, right? So I would say that would be something that could be compensable.'
He added that passengers can sue beyond the limit, 'but if you want to claim it under the Montreal Convention, the benefit of that is all you have to do is prove your injuries.'
'As soon as you start claiming amounts above and beyond that, then they can start putting in defences for negligence. They can start alleging, well, the injury wasn't caused by us, it was caused by a third party, or could have been a result of pre-existing issues, or something other than that. But if you're going to be pursuing the limits under the Montreal Convention, it's a strict liability regime. You just have to show that you're injured on board the aircraft, prove the value of your injuries, and then they'll have to pay it.'
One downside, he noted, is that the convention only mentions physical injuries.
'So if it's a purely psychological claim or psychiatric trauma, and you're not physically hurt … you may not be able to recover anything out of the Montreal Convention.'
No more instant noodles in economy, says Korean Air
Video shows passenger being pulled from overhead bin after turbulent Air Europa flight
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Photo Shows China Missile System Replica Training US Fighter Pilots
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The United States is using a replica of a Chinese air defense missile system as part of its fighter pilot training in preparation for combat, the Wisconsin National Guard has said. Newsweek has contacted the Wisconsin National Guard and the Chinese Defense Ministry for comment via email. Why It Matters The Pentagon has designated the Indo-Pacific as its "priority theater," identifying China as both its "pacing threat"—a direct, consequential and near-term danger to U.S. security and values—and its "pacing challenge"—a long-term risk to U.S. influence, position and power. In July, U.S. forces participated in two large-scale Pacific war games simultaneously—the Australia-hosted, multinational Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025 and the U.S. Air Force's "first in a generation" Department-Level Exercise series—amid growing threats from China. What To Know According to a photo released by the Wisconsin National Guard on Tuesday, the Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center showcased an "HQ-16 towable surrogate target" during an aviation gathering at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on July 25. The HQ-16 is a Chinese medium-range air defense missile system. The towable surrogate target replicates the system's radar vehicle, a Chinese military observer who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic told Newsweek. United States Air Force Technical Sergeant Alan Hughes introduces guests to the HQ-16 towable surrogate target at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on July 25. United States Air Force Technical Sergeant Alan Hughes introduces guests to the HQ-16 towable surrogate target at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on July 25. Senior Master Sgt. Paul Gorman/U.S. Air National Guard In a news release, the Wisconsin National Guard said the Chinese air defense system replica serves as a full-scale training aid designed to familiarize fifth-generation fighter pilots with modern surface-to-air missile systems they may encounter in a combat scenario. The term "fifth-generation fighter" refers to aircraft designed with stealth capabilities that reduce their visibility to radar detection. Both the U.S. and China operate such combat jets and are racing to develop more advanced next-generation—or sixth-generation—aircraft. Full-scale mock-ups allow aircrews to train against realistic representations of peer and near-peer threats, according to David Cenciotti, the editor of the Aviationist. "Depending on the type of decoy, they can support visual identification as well as the detection of electronic signatures via onboard sensors," Cenciotti told Newsweek. He added that some of the world's most advanced training ranges were equipped with so-called high definition targets, which are used for both visual and sensor training. According to the Aviationist, the HQ-16 air defense system initially had a range of about 24.8 miles to intercept aerial targets, with the upgraded version extending this to about 46.6 miles. What People Are Saying U.S. Air Force Technical Sergeant Alan Hughes, a vehicle maintenance specialist assigned to the Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center, said in a news release on Tuesday: "People are often familiar with our aircraft, but may not understand all the effort that goes into getting those planes into the fight. Our HQ-16 target display offers a tiny snippet of all the behind-the-scenes work that goes into keeping our pilots and aircraft combat-ready." David Cenciotti, the editor of the Aviationist, told Newsweek: "Similar mock-ups have been observed in the past at U.S. test ranges, as documented by reports and satellite imagery, and are often used to replicate adversary systems for threat emulation and pilot training." What Happens Next It is likely that the U.S. military has increased its use of such decoys in training. The most recent mock-ups in the U.S. all replicate Chinese military hardware, according to Cenciotti.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Global lead production growth in 2024 driven by key mines
Global lead production reached 4,590.7 kilotonnes in 2024, up by 2.8% over 2023, with Australia, Mexico, Russia, and India contributing 27.8% of the global total. Australia and India were key contributors, driven by the ramp-up of projects such as the Abra Base Metals mine in Australia and India's Sindesar, Zawar, and Rajpura Dariba mines. Mexico's production was boosted by higher grades at Newmont's Penasquito mine, despite a four-month labour dispute earlier in the year while Russia's Ozernoe mine commencement added to growth. In 2025, lead production will be driven by higher output from China, Russia, and India, offsetting declines in Australia and Peru due to scheduled mine closures. China's lead production, the largest globally, will grow slightly by 2.1% in 2025, but its long-term growth will be slow, with a CAGR of 0.5% through to 2030 due to few new capacity additions. Meanwhile, Australia's lead production surged by 11.4% in 2024, reaching 502.5 kilotonnes, driven by projects such as Abra Base Metals and higher grades at South32's Cannington mine. However, growth was tempered by lower output from mines scheduled for closure, such as Potosi/Silver Peak (2025) and Rasp (2026), which are depleting in reserves. In addition, the placement of Century Tailings under care and maintenance following a regional fire in October 2024 further impactedproduction. Future declines in Australia's production are expected, with a CAGR of -1.3% by 2030, primarily due to planned mine closures. In contrast, North American countries, including the US, Canada, and Mexico, will experience growth, with production rising by 29% from 2024 to 2030, driven by new projects such as Hermosa (2027), La Colorada Skarn, and Pine Point (2029). Over the forecast period (2025-2030), global lead production growth is expected to be relatively flat at 0.03%, impacted by mine closures, but offset by new projects such as Bunker Hill, Tala Hamza and Corani. Global lead mine production (kilotonnes), 2010–2030 "Global lead production growth in 2024 driven by key mines" was originally created and published by Mining Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
College Sports Commission informs schools that NIL collectives can pay athletes directly with limitations
In a revised memo sent to schools on Thursday, the College Sports Commission announced that booster-backed NIL collectives can, in fact, directly compensate athletes if the transactions meet certain 'valid business purpose' benchmarks. The one-page guidance replaces a memo sent to schools on July 10 where the CSC revealed that collectives would not be treated as valid businesses and denied many of their transactions with athletes. After weeklong negotiations with House plaintiff attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, the College Sports Commission, operated by the power conferences, is adjusting its approach — an expected resolution that Yahoo Sports reported last week after the parties originally agreed on a joint statement that was finally released Thursday. The statement 'clarifies' what is permitted from collectives to athletes under the NCAA's landmark House settlement agreement, reversing the July 10 guidance by permitting collectives to strike deals with athletes as long as they 'have a valid business purpose related to offering goods or services to the general public for profit and fall within the range of fair market value compensation.' [Join or create a Yahoo Fantasy Football league for the 2025 NFL season] The College Sports Commission, the industry's new enforcement entity led by a former Major League Baseball executive in Bryan Seeley, is charged with determining the legitimacy of third-party NIL deals with athletes. Approved deals hold significant benefit for schools as third-party compensation does not count against the revenue-share cap that each school is working inside. According to the CSC's guidance, the entity is determining deal legitimacy not on the 'labeling' of businesses or payors, as it originally planned, but on the transaction itself. 'Whether or not payments to student-athletes by collectives are permissible under the settlement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,' the statement said. Previously denied deals are being reevaluated to apply the new, revised guidance, the organization said in its guidance to schools. While the statement notes that traditional NIL collective pay-for-play deals remain prohibited, the change in approach paves the way for collectives to pay athletes if those deals satisfy three benchmarks: (1) deliver the public a good or service; (2) turn a profit beyond paying athletes; and (3) fall within a Deloitte-created 'compensation range' standard in the CSC's NIL Go submission platform. This provides a path for collectives to hold an assortment of events to pay athletes, including merchandise sales, autograph signings and athlete appearances at, for example, golf tournaments. The guidance distributed to schools focuses on the 'for profit' benchmark, even noting that the entity may require athletes or businesses to provide information and documentation 'to establish compliance' with the benchmarks. 'Refusal to provide this information or the provision of insufficient information to establish compliance may result in deals not being cleared by the CSC,' the guidance says. This is a notable line that was approved by the House plaintiff attorneys, Kessler and Berman. The resolution between the House plaintiffs and the power conferences operating the CSC may create what some coaches and administrators refer to as a 'soft cap,' certainly softer than the CSC's original approach to collectives. From his football media days earlier this month, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said deeming collectives as any other business could result in a 'very different management system' and a 'softer cap,' a reference to the new revenue-share cap. Schools can directly share no more than $20.5 million with athletes in Year 1 of the concept, excluding compensation from CSC-approved third-party deals. Last week in an interview with Yahoo Sports, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti was asked about collectives finding ways to strike deals with athletes if restrictions were loosened. 'When something works, it gets copied,' he said. 'Things happening out there to provide additional NIL deals for student athletes that makes sense and are allowed under rules, you're going to see more versions of that.' The approach change also, at least for now, prevents a legal challenge from leaders of a group of NIL collectives who began drafting a lawsuit against the CSC's approach. Over the last four years, collectives have served as the driving force for schools to compensate athletes, raising millions in booster money to provide schools a way to recruit and retain players. Tom Mars, a well-known attorney representing the collectives, released a statement to Yahoo Sports about the resolution: 'It should be concerning that it took the four commissioners more than a week to agree on the language of the new guidance. That speaks volumes about their ability to agree on anything. Stephen King wrote a 219-page novel in less time than it took them to write up what was published today.' The CSC's original interpretation of the 'valid business purpose' definition, and resulting denials of collective deals, speaks to one of administrators' goals of the settlement — to shift athlete pay from these booster-run organizations to the schools, which are now permitted to directly share revenue with athletes under the capped system that began July 1. That said, many schools are still operating their collectives as a way to, perhaps, circumvent the system. 'We know that some people are saying, 'We're not worried because we don't think they can really enforce it!'' Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin told Yahoo Sports earlier this month from SEC media days. 'They don't think NIL contracts are going to get kicked back (by the clearinghouse) or they think they're not going to be able to win long-term (legal challenges) because of players' rights.' Ultimately, Sankey suggested, schools hold authority to control their own affiliated collectives. 'For how long have people been begging for guardrails?' Sankey asked. 'Well, now we have guardrails. Those broadly across the country that claim they wanted guardrails need to operate within the guardrails. If you allow what's happened to continue to escalate, there would be a very small number of programs that would be competitive with each other and we'd not have a national sport or a national championship.' The resolution may not completely end what will likely be continuous negotiations over particular enforcement rules between the power leagues controlling the CSC and the House plaintiff attorneys, who hold authority and veto powers over various aspects of the settlement. Last week, Petitti cautioned that more such negotiations are expected in the future. 'I don't think it will be the last time that an issue comes up in the process,' Petitti said. 'The settlement approval came later than expected. It compressed the time period.' The guidance change may also not prevent future legal challenges over other enforcement aspects, including Deloitte's compensation range concept or the appeals arbitration system that athletes can use for deals denied a second time. The CSC, in its first month of existence, is reliant on athletes submitting deals. Athletes are required to submit any third-party deal of $600 or more to an NIL clearinghouse, NIL Go. Those deals flagged by NIL Go are sent to the CSC and its new leader, Seeley, to determine an enforcement decision. As of three weeks ago, more than 100 deals were denied and at least 100 more were under review. More than 1,500 deals had been approved.
