Opinion ID: 63126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the montreal convention

Text: The Montreal Convention, see Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, ICAO Doc. 9740, reprinted in S. TREATY DOC. NO. 106-45, 1999 WL 33292734 (2000) [hereinafter Montreal Convention], was entered into force on November 4, 2003. It succeeded the Warsaw Convention, see Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, Oct. 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. No. 876 (1934) [hereinafter Warsaw Convention], as the treaty exclusively governing the rights and liabilities of passengers and carriers in international air transportation. “The Montreal Convention . . . was the product of a United Nations effort to reform the Warsaw Convention ‘so as to harmonize the hodgepodge of supplementary amendments and intercarrier agreements of which the Warsaw Convention system of liability consists.’” Sompo Japan Ins., Inc. v. Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., 522 F.3d 776, 780 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting 4 Bassam does not appeal the district court’s ruling as to the notification issue, and therefore this court does not address that issue in this opinion. 4 No. 07-30958 Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n.4 (2d Cir. 2004)). “The Montreal Convention is not an amendment to the Warsaw Convention[,]” it takes “precedence over the Warsaw Convention and any of its amendments and related instruments.” Ehrlich, 360 F.3d at 371 n.4 (internal quotations omitted). “The new treaty unifies and replaces the system of liability that derives from the Warsaw Convention, explicitly recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.” Sompo, 522 F.3d at 780–81 (internal quotations omitted). Even though the Montreal Convention is directed more at consumers, it does not alter the original goal of the Warsaw Convention of maintaining limited and predictable damage amounts for airlines. Id. at 781. The Montreal Convention “applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.” Montreal Convention, art. 1(1). “International carriage” is defined as any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage . . ., are situated either within the territories of two States Parties, or within the territory of a single State Party if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a State Party. Id., art. 1(2). The incident giving rise to Bassam’s claim took place on December 8, 2005, after the Montreal Convention became effective, on an international flight from Lebanon to Baton Rouge, via Paris and Dallas. Therefore, American’s liability here, as recognized by both parties, is governed by the Montreal Convention. Only four articles of the Montreal Convention are relevant here. Article 17 defines conditions for carrier liability for harm to passengers, including death or bodily injury and for loss or damage to checked baggage. Article 19 similarly defines conditions for carrier liability for damage caused by delay in the carriage 5 No. 07-30958 by air of passengers, baggage, or cargo. Articles 21 and 22 set forth a strict liability regime for fault of the carrier as to these damages, but place a limitation of liability for each type of claim. Article 22(5), however, provides a willful misconduct exception to this limitation.