Liability Of Carrier Research Articles

The Сonceptual Basis of Liability Insurance Carrier in Defending Passengers of the Rail Transport

In terms of the railway reform and opening the access for private operators to railway facilities on the rights of operators of the infrastructure call for urgent research of conceptual bases of liability insurance carriers secured in the passenger rail transport.The necessity of insurance protection of the passenger rail traffic due to the fact that the existing system of insurance relations, which was formed in the process of implementing compulsory personal insurance of passengers against accidents on the railways, do not meet modern requirements and cannot provide adequate protection and guaranteed compensation for damage caused to passengers. It is believed that the compulsory insurance of liability of the rail carriers for damage to life, health, or property of passengers is a more effective defense mechanism and increases the rail business entities responsible for the safety of the railway routes. The introduction of the liability insurance of the rail carrier allows for the establishment of the legal framework of insurance protection of passengers and determines the mechanism of its implementation. Therefore, this study focuses on improving the mechanism of insurance protection of passengers in the rail transport to address important social and economic problems securing the passenger rail traffic on the basis of the balance of interests of all subjects if the rail and insurance relations.Achieving this goal is viewed as forming a system of benefits of the insurance coverage of the passenger rail to the rail on liability insurance carrier, and determining the features of its implementation during activation of the railway reform.Article received 01.05.2017

A Study on Liability of the Carrier of Passenger by Sea

A Study on Liability of the Carrier of Passenger by Sea

Liability of Carrier in International Carriage for Damage Sustained in Case of Destruction or Loss or Damage to Baggage

Liability of Carrier in International Carriage for Damage Sustained in Case of Destruction or Loss or Damage to Baggage

WPŁYW PRAWA RZYMSKIEGO NA KSZTAŁTOWANIE SIĘ WSPÓŁCZESNYCH TEORII SIŁY WYŻSZEJ

The Influence of Roman Law on the Creation of the Contemporary Theories of Force MajeureSummaryThis paper is devoted to the influence of Roman law on the creation of the contemporary theories of force majeure. Its aim is to verify a commonly shared view that Roman law deeply influenced the development of the private law. The Author analyses the works of the nineteenth century legal scholars on the issue of force majeure (L. Goldschmidt, A. Exner, G. Gerth, J. Luchsinger) to examine to what extent their theories and views were based on Roman law.The nineteenth century legislation referred to the doctrine of Roman jurists due to the fact that the notion of force majeure was applied in the same legal relationships as in Roman law (first and foremost the liability of carrier, innkeeper, stablekeeper). Apart from the national terms used to denote force majeure, e. g. German term höhere Gewalt, the legislators applied the original Roman term vis maior which was well-known in legal writing of European countries.The author comes to a conclusion that the above mentioned legal scholars took advantage of the thought of Roman jurists In fact, the scholars searched for the fundamental idea of their doctrines in the sources of Roman law, however, the sources themselves were interpreted in a creative way, to considerable extent abstracted from their content. The Roman law was analyzed taking into account the needs of the nineteenth century legal relations.To sum up: the theories of force majeure consisted of both the thought of Roman jurists and creative concepts of the nineteenth century scholars.

Navigating the Legal Horizon: Lawyering the MH17 Disaster

On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, leaving no survivors. Since, victims’ relatives, States, and the wider public are trying to understand what happened, how it could happen, who is responsible, and how to address these responsibilities. The efforts to find justice have faced many complications and legal complexities. This article aims to provide insight into these legal and political complexities. In particular, it discusses the core legal questions of the criminal accountability of the perpetrators and the State responsibility of those States involved —Ukraine and Russia— through the legal doctrines of public international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It further offers some core considerations relating to civil liability of States and airline carriers. In addition to providing insight into why the road to justice is long and arduous, the legal options available, and the specific challenges of each, the article also emphasises that having a legal option does not necessarily mean that it is also the best choice to use it. That choice is up to victims’ relatives and the States concerned. The article takes no position in this regard. Instead, it seeks to provide an analysis that may contribute to making such decisions in an informed manner.

Grounds acquittance from civil liability of the carrier for breach of contract of carriage passengers and baggage

The essence of the concepts of «force majeure» and «emergency» has been clarified, revealed their contents; individual circumstances as grounds for acquittance from the carrier’s civil liability with the practice of the European Court of Justice are considered. In civil law single questions of the grounds carrier acquittance from civil liability for breach of contract are analyzed by national and foreign scientists as A. Vyhodyanskyy, A. Dombruhova, B. P. Eliseev, E. V. Passyek, G. V. Tsirat, P. S. Dempsey, H. Manuel and others. Some aspects are still controversial, particularly value the concepts of «force majeure» and «emergency» as grounds for acquittance from civil liability carrier, always the fault of the aircraft is the factor to release the air carrier from civil liability and so on. The purpose of this article is consideration the issue of air carrier grounds for acquittance of civil liability in case of breach of contract of carriage of passengers and baggage, namely the delay or cancellation highlighting with illumination of the practice of the European Court of Justice and national courts. Legislative grounds for acquittance from civil liability of the air carrier are determined by different concepts – the «emergency», «force majeure», and therefore there is a need to clarify their essence. Legal understanding of the concept of «emergency» is identical to the concept of «force majeure» because their essence is revealed with the help of the same characteristics, namely urgency and inevitability. Summarizing the views of scientists and legislative approach to determine the origins of force majeure and their list can be noted that these include such circumstances that caused the social, natural, technological, environmental and other phenomena. Emergency may also be caused by natural, social, technical, political and other phenomena too. Thus, the circumstances and the nature of their origin, content of analyzed concepts are identical. Technical problem can be considered urgency only when it, at first, is not typical of the normal exercise of an air carrier and, secondly, is beyond the actual control of the carrier due to its nature or origin. Technical problems which appear in connection with the maintenance of aircraft or through failure to carry out proper maintenance can not be by themselves qualify as «emergency». Firstly, the concept of «emergency» covered by the concept of «force majeure» because the urgency is one of the signs of the latter. Secondly, when the legislator uses the concept of «emergency», or does not use it, the conditions of release the air carrier from civil liability of are urgency and inevitability of the circumstances. This actually shows the identification of the concept of «emergency» and the concept of «force majeure». Thirdly, the contents of the analyzed concepts form the fact that usually has the same origin. Prevalence of technical challenges faced by carriers themselves is not the factor that indicates the presence or absence of «emergency».

De Varsovia a Montreal y de Montreal a Varsovia: Cuestionamientos judiciales a la incorporación al derecho nacional del Convenio de Montreal, referido al transporte aéreo internacional

As a consequence of a Supreme Court’s ruling that enforces the Warsaw Convention over the Montreal Convention, the author describes the evolution of the legal framework regarding international air carrier liability in the treaties ratified by Peru. Likewise, the author criticizes the arguments on which the ruling relies, defending the enforcement of the Montreal Convention before certain scenarios, and details the possible negative consequences of said judicial decision.

L’article 29 de la CMR en pratique

The CMR's goal of providing uniform rules governing the carrier's liability has been jeopardized from the outset by the convention's reference to national law to determine whether ‘willful misconduct’ or a ‘faute équipollente au dol’ has occurred. This article explores how two of the most common scenarios (driver asleep or absent when the cargo is stolen; goods carried disappear without anyone able to ascertain the exact cause) have been treated by national courts. The authors conclude that all actors - including judges - would greatly benefit from additional information about the way other countries interpret the convention, such as comparative law databases, or detailed comparative law articles.

Limitation of liability right in road freight carriage in Croatia: an extinct institute

Although it is a European Union member state and a party to the CMR Convention, Croatia has not ratified the 1978 CMR-SDR Protocol. Under Croatian law, the carrier liability limit concerning damage to cargo in international transport is not 8.33 special drawing rights (SDR) but, rather, 25 Gérminal francs per kilogram, based on the 1956 CMR Convention. Due to the current price of gold on the world market, such amounts will almost invariably exceed the value of the actual damage, which constitutes a de facto abrogation of the carrier’s right to limit his liability. The co-existence of the two systems for establishing a carrier liability limit has led to a disunification of the issue of carrier liability limitation in the international carriage of goods. Conversely, in 2002, all provisions of the Croatian Road Transport Act of 1998 concerning the contract of the carriage by road in national transport were abolished, depriving Croatian law of its pertinent lex specialis. Consequently, claims for damages are subject to the lex generalis—the Civil Obligations Act of 2005, which provides no specific limit of liability. Since the special law has been abolished and the 1978 CMR-SDR Protocol was never ratified, Croatian transport law does not provide for the possibility to calculate the amount of the carrier liability limit in accordance with the internationally recognized amounts, which are often referred to in the conditions of professional carrier liability insurance policies. This de facto provision abolishes the right to limit liability for the Croatian road carrier, often also leaving him deprived of efficient insurance coverage. Such a situation also creates two distinctive legal regimes of limitation of liability right for the carrier within the CMR member states.

Defining 'Accidents' in the Air: Why Tort Law Principles are Essential in Interpreting the Montreal Convention's 'Accident' Requirement

Exceptions do not exist in a vacuum; in fact, exceptions to a principle are usually formed using those principles to which it is an exception. Even so, United States courts interpreting the “accident” requirement of the Montreal Convention — an exception to traditional tort law regarding injuries sustained during international air travel — fail to use tort law in evaluating whether certain situations meet the “accident” criteria. Consequentially, many decisions render airlines responsible for a passenger’s injuries where any other premises owner would not be implicated in the same circumstances. This directly contrasts the intent of the Montreal Convention’s creators, who wanted to limit carrier liability to foster the airline industry’s viability. Instead of interpreting “accident” to make carriers liable in a narrower set of circumstances and thereby protect airlines, courts are interpreting “accident” in a way that broadens the airline’s responsibilities.This Note examines the history of and the reasons for the Montreal Convention, which in part forces airlines to indemnify passengers for injuries resulting from incidents qualifying as “accidents” — a term undefined in the treaty. The Convention and the subsequent case law interpreting it show to qualify as an “accident,” the injury-producing incident must be causally connected to the plane’s operation. Importantly, the causal connection’s adequacy should be evaluated according to American tort jurisprudence even though the “accident” requirement itself is an exception to general tort law. This Note focuses on a particular type of injury-producing event, a co-passenger tort, because of its interesting causal nature that exemplifies the contrast between decisions using tort law and those rendered under the Convention.

The multimodal carrier's liability for non-localized loss

The aim of this article is to determine the proper regime of the carrier’s liability for the loss of goods when the loss cannot be attributed to the specific stage of multimodal carriage. The author points out the situations in which the regime of the carrier’s liability is directly defined by the domestic or international transport law. However there are many situations when finding the proper regime is more difficult. The author is of the opinion that a multimodal carriage contract is of a mixed nature. The methods of ascertaining legal effects of mixed contracts can be helpful in determination of legal effects of a multimodal carriage contract including rules of the carrier’s liability.

The function of the insurance in carriers' liability for losses on goods in the road transport in Republic of Srpska

The carriers' liability for losses on goods in the road transport results from the contract of carriage concluded with the party who ordered the transport. The form and type of such a liability are defined by valid regulations for such a type of transport, i.e. by regulations for the corresponding contract of carriage. If during the transport there incurs a loss on goods for which the carrier is liable, he will have to compensate such a loss. Taking into consideration the wide range of transport risks which can lead to the loss occurrence on goods, on one side, as well as the high amount of possible losses, on the other side, the carriers can protect their interests by signing the contract on insurance. By signing the contract on insurance against the liability for losses on goods being transported, the carriers protect their interests in the way the incurred loss, for which they are liable, shall be compensated by the insurance company instead of them. The goal of this paper is to point out, in one place, a very important role of the carrier's liability insurance, as well as to point to the issues of the carrier's liability in Republic of Srpska from the aspect of current legal regulations. The conclusion provides a brief review of the noticed problems in the existing legal regulations regarding the observed problem, and the possibilities for providing of the adequate protection of carriers by means of insurance coverage.

Air Carrier Liability for Passenger Death or Injury Under Carriage by Air Act 1972

Air Carrier Liability for Passenger Death or Injury Under Carriage by Air Act 1972

Can Lufthansa Successfully Limit its Liability to the Families of the Victims of Germanwings Flight 9525 Under the Montreal Convention?

The Montreal Convention is an agreement that governs the liability of air carriers for injury and death to passengers travelling internationally by air . The Montreal Convention serves as the exclusive legal framework for victims and survivors seeking compensation for injuries or death arising from accidents involving international air travel. The Montreal Convention sets monetary liability caps on damages in order to promote the financial stability of the international airline transport industry and protect the industry from exorbitant damages awards in courts that would inevitably bankrupt an airline. The Convention allows a litigant suing under the Convention to avoid the liability caps in instances where the airline’s culpability for the injury or death is the direct result of negligence, another wrongful act, or an omission of the airline or its agents. The Montreal Convention identifies specific locations as appropriate venues to advance claims for litigants seeking compensation. These venues are closely tied to either the carrier’s business operations or the passenger’s domicile. In March 2015, in an act of suicide stemming from reactive depression, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 intentionally crashed the aircraft into the French Alps killing the passengers and the remaining crew. Subsequent to the crash, there were media reports that Lufthansa made varying settlement offers to families of the passengers who died aboard the flight ranging from $8,300 USD to $4.5 Million USD depending on the passengers’ citizenship . The unverified offers by Lufthansa prompted outcries from the families of the decedent passengers that they would institute suit against the airline in a more plaintiff friendly jurisdiction such as the United States . The first part of this article accomplishes two goals. First, it examines the Montreal Convention’s venue requirement along with an overview of the recoverable damages from countries comprising the citizenship of the passengers who were not American. The intentional crash of Germanwings flight 9525 by its First Officer encompasses the possibility that Lufthansa may be exposed to unlimited compensatory damages beyond the liability caps contained in the Convention. The second part of this article explores the application of the Convention’s liability limits to the Germanwings flight to demonstrate that the likelihood of escaping the liability limits is slim.

Laws Relating to Delivery of Bulk Oil Cargo with Regard to the Liability of the Carrier in Pakistan

Maritime law is one of the ancient laws of the world and as such from the day of its commencement it joined the body of the international law and provides a legal frame work for rule of trade and commerce in international waters. The Shipping Laws are based on International Conventions and practices of maritime world, they require universal uni- formity. The precedents and practices of maritime countries especially with reference to the liability of carrier with respect to the delivery of cargo can play an important role in the development and interpretation of local maritime laws of Paki- stan. This article critically enlightens numerous landmarks judgment of Superior Courts and particularly refers to a judg- ment on the subject of bulk oil cargo which has been very well received in the United Kingdom, having been reported in the Lloyds Law Reports (1).

Comparative Study on Carrier's Liability for Delay in Delivery

Comparative Study on Carrier's Liability for Delay in Delivery

A regional regime - as a step towards an international regime in multimodal transport?

Regulation in multimodal transport is based on international unimodal conventions, national laws and standard terms because an international convention has not yet been achieved. The carrier's liability varies according to the stage in which the damage takes place. This kind of network principle is not considered optimal, which is why different kinds of possibilities for a regional regime to regulate multimodal transport in the EU have been examined. This article considers whether a regional regime could work as a step towards international regulation and if so what would be the content of this kind of regime. A regional regime could increase predictability within the EU and function as a step towards an international regime. Nevertheless, a regional regime is opposed in the transportation industry and it is difficult to obtain an applicable solution regardless of the aims of the EU to regulate multimodal transport.

Overview of Ocean Carrier Liability Exceptions Under the Rotterdam Rules and the Hague-Hague/Visby Rules

The present article constitutes an overview of the ocean carrier liability exceptions contained in the newly adopted Rotterdam Rules and those present in the Hague-Hague/Visby Rules. Such an overview aims at identifying the main changes brought about by the Rotterdam Rules to the existing Hague-Hague/Visby exculpatory causes. Canadian, English and United States case law and doctrine commenting on the Hague-Hague/Visby Rules liability exceptions are used as the basis for the present comparative study.

10.5937/zrpfns48-6001 = Concept of accident and injury of air passengers

Despite the efforts from the international community to create an unified liability regime in Private International Air Law, there are still significant hurdles to be overcome. Many essential rules from this legal regime are vague and open to interpretation. The role of judges is crucial in order to give them their intended meaning. Thus, this paper examines jurisprudence concerning carrier liability in case of death or injury of passengers.

The Liability of Air Carrier of Goods and Baggage Under International Conventions and the UAE Law

The Liability of Air Carrier of Goods and Baggage Under International Conventions and the UAE Law