On 2 June 2022, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C‑589/20, JR v Austrian Airlines AG, on the interpretation of Article 17(1) and Article 20 of the Montreal Convention. The request has been made in proceedings between JR and Austrian Airlines AG (“Austrian Airlines”) concerning a claim for damages brought by JR for bodily injuries caused by her fall during the disembarkation of a flight operated by that carrier.

After travelling from Thessaloniki to Vienna-Schwechat on a flight operated by Austrian Airlines, while disembarking the aircraft JR’s husband, who held a piece of wheeled hand luggage in each hand, almost fell on the lower third of a mobile stairway with a handrail on each side while JR, who was holding her handbag in her right hand and carrying her son in her left arm, fell and suffered a fracture of her left forearm. JR, therefore, brought an action for damages against Austrian Airlines in the Bezirksgericht Schwechat (District Court of Schwechat) which, however, dismissed her action holding that Austrian Airlines had not infringed its ancillary obligation to ensure the safety of its passengers and that JR had not taken any precautions to prevent her fall. JR appealed against that judgment before the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court of Korneuburg; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice two questions for a preliminary ruling.

By the first question, the referring court asked whether Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which, for no ascertainable reason, a passenger falls on a mobile stairway set up for the disembarkation of the passengers of an aircraft and injures himself or herself constitutes an “accident”, within the meaning of that provision, including where the air carrier concerned has not failed to fulfil its diligence and safety obligations in that regard.

According to the Court, where, for no ascertainable reason, a passenger falls on a mobile stairway set up for the disembarkation of the passengers of an aircraft and injures himself or herself, that fall constitutes an “accident” within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention, notwithstanding the fact that the air carrier concerned has not failed to fulfil its diligence and safety obligations in that regard.

By the second question, the referring court asked whether Article 20 of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that where an accident which caused damage to a passenger consists of that passenger’s fall, for no ascertainable reason, on a mobile stairway set up for the disembarkation of the passengers of an aircraft, the fact that that passenger was not holding the handrail of that stairway at the time of his or her fall may constitute proof of negligence or another wrongful act or omission by that passenger which caused or contributed to the damage suffered by him or her, within the meaning of that provision, and, to that extent, exonerate the air carrier concerned from its liability to that passenger.

According to the Court, in the case of such an accident the air carrier concerned may be exonerated from its liability towards the passenger only to the extent that, taking account of all the circumstances in which that damage occurred, it proves, in accordance with the applicable national rules and subject to the observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, that the damage suffered by that passenger was caused or contributed to by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of that passenger.

Marco Stillo