Latest news with #RenaeEvans
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. 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 and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
National Post
3 days ago
- Business
- National Post
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
Article content This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content 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 content '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.'
ABC News
14-05-2025
- ABC News
Air Canada passengers lose High Court appeal over injuries
Two Air Canada passengers who were allegedly injured on a flight to Australia have lost a High Court appeal, in which they argued there should be no limit on the potential compensation owed by the airline. Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claim they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during a flight from Vancouver to Sydney in July 2019. The High Court has unanimously dismissed the case.
ABC News
14-05-2025
- Health
- ABC News
Passengers lose High Court appeal against Air Canada over injuries claimed from turbulent 2019 flight
Two Air Canada passengers who were allegedly injured on a flight to Australia have lost a High Court appeal, in which they argued there should be no limit on the potential compensation owed by the airline. Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claim they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during a flight from Vancouver to Sydney in July 2019. At the time, Air Canada said the aircraft hit "unforecast and sudden turbulence" which caused it to drop suddenly. The flight was diverted to Honolulu, and 37 people were treated in local hospitals. Images and video of the flight experiencing turbulence were shared on social media, showing oxygen masks falling from the ceiling. Out of the 37 injuries sustained onboard, nine were deemed serious by authorities at the time. Renae Evans claims she required surgery for an injury to the discs in her neck, while Stephanie Evans said the incident caused soft tissue damage to the whole of her spine. An international treaty known as the Montreal Convention reduces airlines' liability for damages when death or injury to a passenger is not the airline's fault. The Evans family argued the airline, in its general rules, had waived the limit on its liability, but the High Court has found it did not. Air Canada could still be liable for compensation of almost a quarter of a million dollars for each passenger, whose substantive claims are yet to be decided. The case boiled down to the interpretation of Air Canada's rule that, where the Montreal Convention applies, there are "no financial limits" on its liability "in respect of death or bodily injury". Article 21 of the Montreal Convention makes clear that airlines bear strict liability for damages up to a limit of about $224,000 in the event of death or injury, regardless of whether it is the result of an airline's negligence. But a later clause — Article 25 — allows carriers to subject themselves to "higher limits of liability than those provided for in this Convention or to no limits of liability whatsoever". The passengers claimed Air Canada had done so, arguing the wording of the rule was "clear and unambiguous". In response, Air Canada highlighted the preceding rule, in which it said the liability guidelines in the Montreal Convention "are fully incorporated herein and shall supersede and prevail over" any inconsistent clauses. 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 has unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. In its judgment, the court found Air Canada's rule "does not use the language of waiver … [nor] of raising or abolishing the limit."
