King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Date: 28 February 2002
• Citation: (2002), 286 N.R. 201 (HL)

King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd. (2002), 286 N.R. 201 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

King (Ap)(respondent) v. Bristow Helicopters Limited (appellants) (Scotland) In Re M (a child by her litigation friend CM) (FC) (appellant)

([2002] UKHL 7)

Indexed As: King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

February 28, 2002.

Summary:

Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention which was incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom as Schedule 1 to the Car­riage by Air Act 1961, provided that air carriers were liable for "bodily injury" suf­fered by passengers. At issue in these appeals was the meaning of the phrase "bod­ily injury" as found in article 17, and in particular, whether a person who suffered no physical injury but who did suffer mental injury or illness (such as clinical depression) as a result of an accident on board an air­craft had a claim against the carrier under art. 17 of the Convention.

The House of Lords discussed the meaning of the phrase "bodily injury" as used in art. 17. The court held that there was no recov­ery under art. 17 where a person suffered a mental injury unaccompanied by a physical injury. The court discussed however whether art. 17 permitted recovery for the physical manifestations of a mental injury or in cases where it could be established that a psychia­tric disorder caused actual physical damage to the brain.

Editor's Note: Article 17 of the Conven­tion was included in Schedule 1 of the Cana­dian Carriage By Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26.

Aeronautics - Topic 5144

Airlines - Carriage of passengers - Lia­bility - Exclusions - [See all Aeronautics -Topic 5145 ].

Aeronautics - Topic 5145

Airlines - Carriage of passengers - Lia­bility - Damages - Mental injury or ill­ness - Article 17 of the Warsaw Conven­tion as incorporated into the Carriage by Air Act (U.K.) 1961, provided that air carriers were liable for "bodily injury" suffered by passengers - An issue arose respecting the meaning of the phrase "bodily injury" and, in particular, whether a person who suf­fered no physical injury but who did suffer mental injury or illness (such as clinical depression) because of an accident on board an aircraft had a claim against the carrier under art. 17 - The House of Lords discussed the meaning of the phrase "bod­ily injury" as used in art. 17 - The court held that there was no recovery under art. 17 where a person suffered a mental injury unaccompanied by a physical injury - The court discussed however whether art. 17 permitted recov­ery for the physical mani­festations of a mental injury or in cases where it could be established that a psy­chiatric disorder caused actual physical damage to the brain - See paragraphs 1 to 184.

Aeronautics - Topic 5145

Airlines - Carriage of passengers - Lia­bility - Damages - Mental injury or ill­ness - A male passenger on an aircraft caressed the leg of a young female pass­enger who was sitting beside him and travelling on her own - As a result, the girl suffered a clinical depression amount­ing to a single episode of a major depress­ive illness - She sued the airline for dam­ages for mental injury under art. 17 of the Warsaw Con­vention as incorporated into the Carriage By Air Act (U.K.) - Article 17 provided that an air carrier was respon­sible for "bodily injury suffered by the passenger" - The House of Lords affirmed that the female passenger's claim fell out­side art. 17 because it involved mental injury or illness only - Article 17 did not permit recovery for a solely mental injury unac­companied by a physical injury - See paragraphs 1 to 184.

Aeronautics - Topic 5145

Airlines - Carriage of passengers - Lia­bility - Damages - Mental injury or ill­ness - A helicopter took off from a float­ing platform in the North Sea in poor weather - The helicopter experienced engine failure and landed on the helideck - Smoke engulfed the helicopter - There was panic on board - The door was opened and the passengers disembarked - King, one of the passengers, developed post-traumatic stress disorder - As a result of the stress he suffered an onset of peptic ulcer disease - King claimed damages from the company which owned the heli­copter under art. 17 of the Warsaw Con­vention as incorporated into the Carriage By Air Act (U.K.) - Article 17 provided that an air carrier was responsible for "bodily injury suffered by the passenger" - The House of Lords held that King's claim fell within art. 17 only in so far as it involved a peptic ulcer together with the pain and suffering associated with it - See paragraphs 1 to 184.

Words and Phrases

Bodily injury - The House of Lords dis­cussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in art. 17 of the Warsaw Con­vention as incorporated into the Carriage By Air Act (U.K.), 1961 - See paragraphs 1 to 184.

Words and Phrases

Lésion corporelle - The House of Lords discussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in art. 17 of the Warsaw Con­vention as incorporated into the Carriage By Air Act (U.K.), 1961 - See paragraphs 1 to 184.

Cases Noticed:

Weaver v. Delta Airlines (1999), 56 F. Supp.2d 1190, refd to. [paras. 4, 19, 116, 154].

Eastern Airlines Inc. v. Floyd (1991), 499 U.S. 530 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 5, 19, 110, 166].

Morris v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, [2002] Q.B. 100, refd to. [para. 9].

Sidhu v. British Airways plc - see Abnett v. British Airways plc.

Abnett v. British Airways plc, [1997] A.C. 430 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 14, 46, 147].

El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. v. Tseng (1999), 525 U.S. 155 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 14, 113, 173].

Swiss Bank Corp. v. Brink's MAT Ltd., [1986] Q.B. 853, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Adan, [2001] 2 A.C. 477, refd to. [para. 16].

Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd., [1981] A.C. 251, refd to. [paras. 17, 76, 147].

Daddon v. Air France (1984), 1 S & B Av R VII/141, refd to. [paras. 17, 120, 165].

Kotsambasis v. Singapore Airlines Ltd., [1997] 42 N.S.W.L.R. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 121, 170].

Rosman and Herman v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (1974), 34 N.Y. 2d 385 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 20, 107, 144].

Carey v. United Airlines (2001), 28 Avi. 15,408 (9th Cir. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 174].

In re Air Crash at Little Rock, Arkansas (2000), 118 F.Supp.2d 916, refd to. [para. 24].

Jack v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (1994), 854 F.Supp. 654, refd to. [paras. 24, 114 129, 168].

Terrafranca v. Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. (1998), 151 F.Supp.3d 108, refd to. [paras. 24, 117, 174].

Alvarez v. American Airlines Inc. (1999), 27 Avi. 17,214; 27 Avi. 17,475, refd to. [paras. 24, 115, 174].

R. v. Ireland, [1998] A.C. 147, refd to. [paras. 25, 55].

Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - see White et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et al.

White et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et al., [1999] 2 A.C. 455; 234 N.R. 121 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

McLoughlin v. O'Brian, [1983] A.C. 410, refd to. [paras. 26, 154].

R. v. Chan-Fook, [1994] 1 W.L.R. 689, refd to. [paras. 26, 53].

Buchanan (James) & Co. v. Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd., [1978] A.C. 141, refd to. [paras. 26, 78, 147].

Bourhill v. Young, [1943] A.C. 92, refd to. [para. 47].

Page v. Smith, [1996] A.C. 155; 182 N.R. 321 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 48].

Cockburn v. Chief Adjudication Officer, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 799, refd to. [para. 52].

Herd v. Clyde Helicopters Ltd. - see Fellows et al. v. Clyde Helicopters Ltd.

Fellows et al. v. Clyde Helicopters Ltd., [1997] A.C. 534; 209 N.R. 354 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 63].

Holmes v. Bangladesh Bima Corp., [1989] A.C. 1112 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].

Air France v. Saks (1985), 470 U.S. 392 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 71, 134].

Chaudhari v. British Airways plc, The Times (May 7, 1997), Transcript No. 590, refd to. [para. 71].

Miss Morris's Case, Re, [2002] Q.B. 100, refd to. [para. 71].

Grein v. Imperial Airways Ltd., [1937] 1 K.B. 50, refd to. [para. 76].

Stag Line Ltd. v. Foscolo, Mango Co., [1932] A.C. 328, refd to. [paras. 78, 147].

In re Air Crash at Little Rock, Arkansas (2000), 27 Avi. 18,428, refd to. [para. 117].

Burnett v. Trans World Airlines Inc. (1973), 12 Avi. 18405 (U.S. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 161].

American Airlines v. Georgeopoulos, [1998] N.S.W.S.C. 463 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].

Turturro v. Continental Airlines (2001), 27 Avi. 18,414, refd to. [para. 177].

Statutes Noticed:

Carriage By Air Act (U.K.), 1961, Sched­ule 1, art. 17, art. 18, art. 19, art. 20, art. 21, art. 22, art. 23, art. 24, art. 25 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clarke, Malcolm, Air rage: Businessmen behaving badly: Civil Liability for uncivil passengers (2001), L.M.C.L.Q. 369, refd to. [para. 17].

Clarke, Malcolm, Carriage of Goods by Air (2002), generally [para. 17].

Gelder, Mayou and Cowen, Shorter Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry (4th Ed. 2001), generally [paras. 25, 154].

Horner and Legraz, II Conference International de Droit Privé Aérien, Minutes (1975), pp. 204, 205 [para. 95].

Miller, Georgette, Liability in International Air Transport (1977), pp. 127, 128 [paras. 17, 85].

Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage (1993), p. 18 [para. 125].

Riese, Otto, and Lacour, Précis de droit Aérien (1951), p. 264, para. 323 [para. 100].

Riese, Otto, Luftrecht (1949), p. 442 [para. 100].

Counsel:

Colin Campbell, Q.C., and Marian Gilmore, for the appellants;

Michael S. Jones, Q.C., and Shona E. Haldane, for the respondents.

Agents:

Beaumont & Son, for the appellants;

Balfour & Manson, for the respondents.

These appeals were heard before Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough of the House of Lords. The decision of the House was given on February 28, 2002, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Nichols of Birkenhead - see paragraphs 1 to 5;

Lord Mackay of Clashfern - see paragraphs 6 to 8;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 9 to 32;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 33 to 130;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 131 to 184.