Ryanair to pay libel damages to easyJet founder

Irish budget airline Ryanair has agreed to pay libel damages of 50,100 pounds to the founder of rival carrier easyJet after running advertisements picturing him with a long Pinocchio nose. Stelios had accepted and would donate to his philanthropic foundation.

The settlement was announced in court Thursday.

Source: AP; find article here>>.

European Court of Justice: liability limit of Montreal Convention includes both material and non-material damage

The Montral Convention provides that the liability of a carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage is limited to the sum of 1000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for each passenger (a sum equivalent to approximately €1134.71)3, unless a passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case, as a rule a carrier is liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum.

On 14 April 2008, Mr Walz brought an action against the airline Clickair claiming damages from it for the loss of checked baggage in the context of a flight from Barcelona (Spain) to Oporto (Portugal) operated by that company. In that action, Mr Walz claimed total damages of €3200: €2700 for the value of the lost baggage and €500 for non-material damage resulting from that loss. The Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 4 de Barcelona (Commercial Court No 4, Barcelona, Spain), before which the proceedings were brought, asks whether the limit of air carriers’ liability set by the Montreal Convention in the case of loss of baggage includes both material and non-material damage or whether, on the contrary, material damage is subject to the limit of 1000 SDR, while, on the other hand, non-material damage is subject to a further limit of the same amount, so that the total combined limit for material and non-material damage is 2000 SDR.

European Court of Justice on May 6, 2010 ruled that for the purposes of determining the limit of an air carrier’s liability for the damage resulting, inter alia, from the loss of baggage, the term ‘damage’ in the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as including both material and non-material damage.

Source: ECJ press release 43/10
Full text of judgement Walz v Clickair C-63/09 available here>>.

England: no tour organizer liability for toboggan accident

Plaintiff (P) and her family booked a skiing holiday at Mayrhofen, Austria with defendant (D). The package included the hotel and the flight but made clear that ski equipment, ski passes and any lessons had to be booked separately. The internet brochure stated that tobogganing was available at the resort. On the third day P asked D's representative at the resort who had welcomed the group on their arrival if a tobogganing event was suitable for their party of adults and children, particularly P's seven year old son Joe and whether it was available that evening. D's representative replied that D had no spaces left. She suggested that she would contact another tour operator called Inghams and get the family party on the event with them which she then did.

The event itself was organised by an Austrian company called Action Club Zillertal (“ACZ”) who took bookings from members of the public as well as from tour operators such as D.The bus from the hotel was provided by ACZ who handed out a docket or ticket to those on the bus entitling its passengers to obtain a toboggan and a ride on the gondola (which took the participants up to the beginning of the toboggan run). Four representatives of D were on the trip and at the toboggan run spread themselves out among the participants. The fast participants went first, the slower ones following. P and a friend arrived safely at the end of the run (although they could not stop until they had passed a red light indicating the end of the run). They got off their toboggan a little beyond the proper end of the run.

After the red light there was a prominent sign stating “Ende der Rodelbahn”. After this sign only just before a snowbank, the road went round a left hand bend quite steeply downhill towards the cable car station and a chalet hotel which was on the right. The accident happened because P and heri friend had remounted their toboggan and came down the lower road from the end of the run to the cable car station too fast. Seeking to avoid the buildings they careered into some straw bales which were hard and frozen. P suffered severe injury to her legs.

The judge of first instance court found that the tour representatives had briefed the participants both on the bus and at the top of the mountain that there was a flashing red light at the end of the run and that they must then get off their toboggans, and walk down the rest of the way to the toboggan shed and the bus. The judge specifically found that this instruction was given several times and that P had heard it. He dismissed the claim.

Upon P's appeal, the High Court of Justice held that it was not entirely easy to determine, on the exiguous evidence before the judge, whether P had a contract with D in relation to the toboggan run.Had there been a contract, the only relevant term would be an implied term that D would exercise due diligence. However, D had assumed responsibility to their customers, and owed them a duty of care in tort.

Anyway, it was not the duty of a tour operator dealing with rational adults on a winter holiday to repeat simple warnings already given with clarity or to point out obvious dangers of ice on the road and the relative safety of snow at its side. So to hold would only encourage potential claimants to believe that whenever an injury occurs someone must be to blame. That is not what the law of negligence is about.

Case Details: Susan Parker v. TUI UK Ltd [2009) EWCA Civ 1261; full text of judgement available here>>.