Full text of the paper:

Preuzimanje rada u pdf formatu

Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law, University of Novi Sad

2017, vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 571–587

Language of the paper: Serbian

Overview paper

udk: 347.8:347.56]:347.426.4

doi: 10.5937/zrpfns51-15098

Author:

Irena Radumilo, Ph. D. Stu­dent

Uni­ver­sity of No­vi Sad

Fa­culty of Law No­vi Sad

irenaradumilo@gmail.com

Ab­stract:

De­spi­te the ef­forts of the in­ter­na­ti­o­nal com­mu­nity to cre­a­te uniform ru­les on the li­a­bi­lity of an air car­ri­er in a ca­se of pas­sen­ger in­ju­ri­es du­ring a flight or in con­nec­tion with a flight, cer­tain con­cerns re­main un­re­sol­ved. The Mon­treal Con­ven­tion of 1999, alt­ho­ugh the most im­por­tant con­tem­po­rary in­terna­ti­o­nal do­cu­ment which re­gu­la­tes the is­sue of com­pen­sa­tion in a ca­se of a passen­ger’s in­jury du­ring a flight, do­es not go beyond the con­tro­ver­sial is­sue of the li­a­bi­lity of an air car­ri­er for the men­tal in­jury that the pas­sen­ger has suf­fe­red. As the pro­vi­sion of the Con­ven­tion which de­als with the li­a­bi­lity of an air car­ri­er, has had a fle­xi­ble in­ter­pre­ta­tion in the last few de­ca­des, the word of a jud­ge in each in­di­vi­dual ca­se is still the most ade­qu­a­te an­swer to this is­sue. The over­vi­ew of the rich co­urt prac­ti­ce in the text be­low will ex­pla­in, abo­ve all, the dis­tin­ction in the per­cep­tion of men­tal and physi­cal in­ju­ri­es by the co­u­rt, and po­int out the pro­blems and in­con­si­sten­ci­es that the co­urt en­co­un­ters when in­ter­pre­ting the text of the Con­ven­tion. De le­ge fe­ren­da, the ex­pli­cit in­clu­sion of a pas­sen­ger’s men­tal in­jury in the ba­sis of air car­ri­er’s li­a­bi­lity in the text of the Con­ven­tion, wo­uld su­rely lead to gre­a­ter le­gal cer­ta­inty, as well as a dec­li­ne in the num­ber of li­ti­ga­tion.

Keywords:

air car­ri­er, pas­sen­ger, me­tal in­jury, da­ma­ge (in­jury).