• Easyjet
    easyJet
    IATA/ICAO Code:
    U2/EZY (UK) | EC/EJU (Europe) | DS/EZS (Switzerland)
    Airline Type:
    Low-Cost Carrier
    Hub(s):
    Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, Berlin Brandenburg Airport, Geneva Airport, London Gatwick Airport, London Luton Airport, Milan Malpensa Airport
    Year Founded:
    1995
    CEO:
    Johan Lundgren

A court in Scotland has found in favor of a disabled passenger who brought a civil case against easyJet, following an incident in which the passenger sustained injuries after falling out of his wheelchair as he disembarked a flight from Edinburgh. Let's take a closer look at the court's decision in this case.

Background to the case

A judge in the Scottish courts has found that easyJet, the low-cost Luton-based airline was liable for injuries sustained by a paraplegic man who fell out of a wheelchair which was being pushed by one of its agents on an air bridge.

The individual pushing the wheelchair was employed by a third-party provider to the airline, DRK Hamburg Mediservice GmbH (DRK). The passenger had joined DRK in the proceedings, claiming that they acted as an agent on behalf of easyJet.

The passenger, Colin Mather, aged 51, had flown with easyJet from Edinburgh to Hamburg, Germany, in May 2017. The passenger alleged that he was thrown from a wheelchair unexpectedly before reaching the terminal.

Hamburg Airport
Photo: Chris Loh | Simple Flying

The incident at the heart of the case

The passenger, aged 51 at the time of the incident, was rendered a paraplegic after an accident in 2009. In May 2017, at the time of the incident, he was working as a consultant, and his work took him on frequent business trips overseas, including regular flights from Edinburgh to Hamburg. On May 15th, 2017, he boarded the easyJet flight in Edinburgh with the assistance of ground personnel, after which his wheelchair was stowed in the hold.

Upon the flight's arrival in Hamburg, assistance personnel employed by DRK helped the passenger into an airport-supplied wheelchair (as his own remained in the aircraft hold at this point) and pushed him from the aircraft onto the air bridge, joining the plane to the terminal building. In his submissions to the court, the passenger claimed that the manner in which he was pushed could be described as "brisk."

The passenger flew on an easyJet flight from Edinburgh Airport to Hamburgh. Photo: Ed Meskens via Wikimedia Commons

At the entrance to the terminal building, the wheelchair hit a raised edge at the point where the air bridge met the terminal, causing the wheelchair to come to an "abrupt halt" and the passenger to land on his legs on the marble floor just inside the threshold of the airport building. As a result of his fall from the wheelchair, the passenger suffered fractures to both legs below knee level.

In the case brought before the court, the passenger sought damages from easyJet due to the airline being liable for the injuries he sustained as a result of the fall. His case was that easyJet was responsible for his injuries under the Montreal Convention 1999 and that DRK was acting as an agent of easyJet at the time of the incident.

The Montreal Convention applies

The Montreal Convention 1999 establishes airline liability in cases where death or injury to passengers has occurred and in cases of delay, damage, or loss of baggage and cargo. Its purpose is to unify the different international treaty regimes covering airline liability. It was designed to be a single, universal treaty to govern airline liability worldwide.

The passenger claimed that easyJet had admitted liability in a letter he received from solicitors acting on behalf of easyJet dated July 17th, 2018. The letter stated that -

“I have instructions to admit liability in line with the protocol. It is intended to be binding.”

Lawyers for easyJet attempted to persuade the court that the airline should not be bound by its pre-litigation admission to accept liability for anything more than provided for by the Convention. They also argued that, in any event, the incident had been caused by the individual pushing the wheelchair at the time (an employee of DRK).

They claimed that the DRK employee had not been acting as an agent for easyJet at the time of the incident but on behalf of the operators of Hamburg Airport.

In its response, DRK argued that under the terms of the Convention, easyJet was solely responsible for the passenger's safety until he was inside the terminal building. Thus the airline remained accountable for the acts of DRK and its employees while on the airbridge.

Further, under the terms of the Convention, any claim against DRK as agents of easyJet had expired due to the passage of time since the incident - what is known as the rule on limitation. In this case, the rule on limitation was three years from the end of the year in which the incident occurred.

easyJet 250th Airbus 04
EasyJet claimed in court that DRK was responsible for the incident. Photo: easyJet

The judge's decision found against easyJet

In his decision on hearing the case, the judge stated that the email from easyJet's lawyers sent in July 2018 was a full admittance of liability. However, this raised a further question as to whether DRK could be jointly liable for the injuries sustained by the passenger as a result of his fall.

Applying the Convention to the facts of the case and in his decisions on whether DRK was to be found jointly liable with easyJet, the judge said,

"There is no dispute that the event which caused the injury to Mr Mather was an accident which took place in the course of disembarking within the meaning of the Convention. The critical issue, so far as the extent of easyJet's liability is concerned, is whether DRK was acting as the agent of easyJet or as an independent third party. It matters not that there was no direct contractual connection between easyJet and DRK, or that DRK was the independent contractor to Hamburg Airport.

What matters is that the services provided to easyJet were in furtherance of the contract of carriage by assisting Mr Mather to disembark the flight. They were also, in terms of the earlier test, services which easyJet would themselves have been required by law to provide had DRK not provided them as they were part of the process of disembarkation."

In his conclusions regarding where liability rested in the case, the judge concluded that although the DRK employee should have maintained a proper lookout and noticed the raised edge, neither the employee nor DRK itself should be held accountable for the incident under the terms of the Convention, as the passenger remained under the duty of care owed to him by the airline.

As such, DRK and its employee were acting as agents of easyJet. Consequently, easyJet was fully liable for both the incident itself and to pay damages to the passenger as a result.

The conclusions of the case

The judge concluded that easyJet is liable for unlimited damages as it has not proved that the injury to the passenger was not due to its own negligence or other wrongful act or omission or that of its servants or agents. The passenger had proved that the accident was due to the negligence of easyJet through the actions of its agent, DRK."

The judge awarded damages in favor of the passenger to be assessed and for a final hearing regarding how much that award should equate to be held at a later date. DRK was found to have no liability in the case and was released from any further involvement.

easyJet A320neo by hangar
Photo: easyJet

The understated importance of the Montreal Convention

The case highlights the importance of the duty of care owed by airlines and their agents to passengers and the limits on what type of involvement and behavior provided by third parties can be construed as acting as agents of an airline.

It also shines a light on the Montreal Convention. Although sitting quietly in the background of just about every airline operation worldwide, this hugely important piece of legislation remains the 'go to' rulebook when it comes to deciding on issues of airline responsibilities and liabilities, as witnessed in this particular case.

What are your thoughts on the judge's decision? Were you aware of the significance of the Montreal Convention? Let us know in the comments.