Research and development in private law

Research and development in private law

The beginning and the end of the carrier liability for the passenger's death & personal damage in international air transport

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Hossein Pourhassani 1
Mohammad SalehiMazandarani 2
1 university of Qom
2 Faculty of Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran
10.22034/jpl.2026.2075802.1257
Abstract
In the event of the governance of the Warsaw Conventions (including the Hague Protocol of Amendment) and Montreal in international flights, the liability of the carrier for the life of the passenger begins upon the commencement of the operations of carriage and terminates upon their completion. Determining the scope of the carrier's liability—that is, the time and boundary of the commencement and termination of this liability under the purview of Article 17 of these two Conventions—is one of the challenging issues in private international air law, as neither of the Conventions specifies by what action and from what time the operations of carriage commence, and how they terminate.

Judicial practice and doctrine have attempted to elucidate the concept of "operations of embarking and disembarking" since the inception of the Warsaw Convention's governance. Despite providing solutions such as the "safe place" test, especially the so-called Day test, which is based on three criteria—the location of the passenger, the activity of the passenger, and the degree of control by the carrier (the passenger's freedom of action)—and although it is somewhat helpful, it faces ambiguity in complex cases and when confronted with the technological advancements of airports and the air transport industry, such as smart gates and automated connecting tunnels.

This article employs a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach, studying the doctrine and judicial practice from various countries. While examining the Day test, it critically analyzes its underlying basis. The research findings indicate that this theory’s focus on indicators such as the passenger's activity or proximity to the gate, while useful, can be inadequate in providing a correct answer to contemporary disputes.

To fill this gap, the article proposes a new theory entitled "Operational Dominance." Instead of focusing on often-relative criteria, this theory bases liability on the structural and functional foundation of the operations of embarking and disembarking. To determine the scope of the carrier's liability, this theory introduces three criteria: first, the structural necessity of the process; second, the carrier's systematic dominance; and third, the controllable operational risk.

Analysis of cases that resulted in disagreement between the lower and higher courts shows that this theory can, while aligning with the protective objectives of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, prevent the unjustified expansion of carrier liability and provide clear, coherent, and predictable criteria for the courts.
Keywords
Air Carrier
Warsaw Convention
Montreal Convention
Operations of Embarking and Disembarking
Day Test
Subjects
1.       Abeyratne R.I.R. (1996). Liability for personal injury and death under the Warsaw Convention and its relevance to fault liability in tort law, Annals of Air and SpaceLaw, Vol. XXI,.
2.       Adatio v. Air Canada, Court of Appeal (Canada), May 21, 1992
3.       Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court of the United States, 1985)
4.       Air-Inter v. Sage, Cour d’appel de Lyon, February 10, 1976, Revue Française de Droit Aérien, 30, 266.
5.       Banna Niasari, Mashallah, (2004), Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal, 28 May 1999), International Law, No 31. (in Persian)
6.       Bartsch, Ron (2018), International Aviation Law (A Practical Guide), Second Edition, Routledge, New York.
7.       Buonocore v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 900 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1990).
8.       Carmelo Labbadia -v- Alitalia (Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A) 2019
9.       Clarke, Malcolm A. (2010), Contracts of Carriage by Air, Second Edition, London, Lloyd’s List.
10.    Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 1999, (Montreal Convention)
11.    Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, 1929 (warsaw Convention)
12.    Cousins, Janice. (1976). Warsaw Convention―Air Carrier Liability for Passenger Injuries Sustained Within a Terminal ,45 Fordham L. Rev. 369,
13.    Dagi v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 19-1056 (1st Cir. 2020)
14.    Day v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 217 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)
15.    DHI22 v. Qatar Airways Group Q.C.S.C. (No 1), [2025] FCAFC 91 (Federal Court of Australia, Full Court).
16.    Dick v. American Airlines, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D. Mass. 2007)
17.    Diederiks-Verschoor, I.H.Ph. (2017), An Introduction to Air Law, 10th Edition, Netherlands, Kluwer Law International.
18.    Drion, H. (1954), Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law, First Edition, Berlin.
19.    Eman Naboush, Raed Alnimer. (2020). Air carrier's liability for the safety of passengers during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Air Transport Management. 89.
20.    Fakhari, Amir Hosain, MohammadZadeh, Moslem, (2006), The Elements for Establishing the Contractual Liability of the Air Carrier Toward the Passenger under the Warsaw System and the 1999 Montreal Convention, Islamic Law Research, No 25. (in Persian)
21.    Giannini, amedeo, (1932). Saggi di Diritto Aeronautico, Milan, First Edition, Vita e Pensiero.
22.    Goedhuis, (1931). Observations Concerning Chapter 3 of the Convention of Warschau 1929, in Cinquiéme Congrés International de la Navigation Aérienne.
23.    Hague Protocol, 1955.
24.    Husserl v. Swissair, 485 F.2d 1240 (2d Cir. 1975).
25.    J. Scott Hamilton, with Dr. Sarah Nilsson, (2020). Practical Aviation & Aerospace Law, Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc., Seventh Edition, Washington.
26.    Jabbari, Mansour, (2008), Compensation for emotional and psychological damage in air transportation, Legal Research Quarterly, No 48. (in Persian)
27.    Jabbari, Mansour, (2009), The concept of Accident in International Air Transport, Comparative Law Reserch, Vol 14, 2st. (in Persian)
28.    Jabbari, Mansour, (2017), The Law of International Carriage by Air, 2st, Tehran, Mizan Pub. (in Persian)
29.    JR v. Austrian Airlines AG, Case C-589/20, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) (2022).
30.    Kazemi, Hamid, (2019), Private International Air Law, 1st, Tehran, Samt Pub. (in Persian)
31.    Kruger v. Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
32.    Labbadia v. Alitalia (Società Aerea Italiana S.p.A.), Court of Cassation (Italy, Civil Section), 2019.
33.    MacDonald v. Air Canada, 439 F.2d 1402 (1st Cir. 1971).
34.    Martinez Hernandez v. Air France, 545 F.2d 279 (1st Cir. 1976)
35.    Mohammadzadeh Vadeghani, Alireza; Banna Niasari, Mashallah (2005), The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Faculty of Law and Political Science Quarterly (University of Tehran), No. 68. (in Persian)
36.    Moore v. British Airways PLC, 32 F.4th 110 (1st Cir. 2022).
37.    Naboush, Eman. (2020). Air carrier's liability for the safety of passengers during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Air Transport Management. 89.
38.    O. Riese, J.-T. Lacour, (2007). Précis de droit aérien, Second Edition, Paris, The Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.
39.    Okeke v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00538 (M.D.N.C. 2010).
40.    Pearson, MichaeL w., RiLey, Daniel s., (2015). Foundations of aviation Law, Burlington, Routledge.
41.    Phillips v. Air New Zealand Ltd., [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. ___ (High Court of Justice).
42.    Ramos v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-207 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2011)
43.    Sadeghi, Hossein, (2006), Parties to Litigation in International Air Carriage and the Courts of Competent Jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention and Its Amending Instruments, Judicial Law Views, No 42 & 43. (in Persian).
44.    Scott, Benjamyn I., Trimarchi, Andrea. (2020).  Fundamentals of International Aviation Law and Policy, Burlington, Routledge.
45.    Sullivan, George R.(1936) The Codification of Air Carrier Liability by International Convention. 7 J. Air L. & Com. 1.
46.    Taheri, Sara & Others, (2026), A Comparative Study of Civil Liability Arising from the Air Transport of Dangerous Goods in Iranian Law, Jurisprudence (Fiqh), and International Instruments, Research and development in comparative law, Available at: doi:   10.22034/law.2025.2043764.1471 (in Persian)
47.    Thalin, Christoffer. (2002). The Air Carrier’s Liability for Passenger Damages. Faculty of law university of lund.
48.    Walsh v. Northwest/KLM Airlines, Inc., No. 7:09-cv-01803 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).