The Legal Framework of the Aviation Industry

The Legal Framework of the Aviation Industry

The regulations governing airline responsibility for international flights are outlined by the Montreal Convention. This convention requires airlines to compensate for injuries and fatalities occurring during flights. However, an intriguing ruling from a Maryland court has determined that the convention also limits the grounds on which passengers can file lawsuits.

The Incident on Delta Airlines Flight

On April 8, 2019, Hisham Kassab was returning to Baltimore from Rome via Atlanta with his two young sons. They boarded a flight from Atlanta to Baltimore but were unexpectedly removed without a clear reason. A gate agent, a flight attendant, and several other passengers reported that Kassab had used foul language during a conversation with the gate staff.

However, Kassab denied this accusation, asserting that he was “completely polite” and describing his family's behavior as normal, non-disruptive, and non-threatening. He believes they were removed from the flight solely because they are Muslim of Middle Eastern descent.

Compensation Demands from Delta Airlines

Kassab sought over $100,000 in damages, claiming Delta's actions were “unfair, unreasonable, cruel, and cold” in ejecting him and his family from the flight. He filed a lawsuit three years after the incident. Although the Montreal Convention has a two-year statute of limitations, Kassab argued that this rule does not apply to his case, as it pertains only to instances of passenger fatalities and injuries, baggage damage, and delays.

Progress of the Lawsuit and Court's Decision

Delta Airlines contended that since this was an international flight (even though it was a domestic leg), the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Montreal Convention. The court agreed, stating that without an accident or injury, no compensation would be awarded. Psychological injuries are only compensable if they stem from physical harm. Furthermore, the lawsuit was also subject to the two-year limitation in any case.

The Reality of the Montreal Convention

The Montreal Convention is often described as passenger-friendly because it mandates strict liability. Passengers do not need to prove the airline’s intent or negligence to seek compensation. However, it also excludes many claims and caps compensation limits, which can be quite low.

Similar Lawsuits and Current Situation

In cases of negligence, the limitation of liability does not incentivize airlines to change their behavior. A four-year-old boy burned by United’s 200-degree tea also faced a compensation cap. A JetBlue passenger burned by dry ice provided by a flight attendant encountered similar limitations.

The incident of “flying while Muslim” on Delta has never been resolved. The court never ruled on what actually transpired. The man was not given the opportunity to defend his rights in court.

Conclusion

Despite this, the decision in this case was not published, so it is not considered precedent. This leaves similar cases in the future facing challenges in asserting their rights.