Theory And Legal Practice Of Compensation On Mental Injury In International Air Carrier

This article discusses the theory and legal practice of compensation on mental injury in international air carrier. The uniform rule which governs this issue is the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent amendment and the Montreal Convention. The development of aircraft technology spurs the soaring international air transport, while during the course of transportation, unexpected aviation accident will cause damage to passengers. There is no dispute air carrier is labile for the bodily injury of passengers when they institute legal proceedings, but whether air carrier should pay for mental injury of a passenger in still on the dispute. This paper starts with the interpretation of the international conventions on this issue, then analyze major judicial practice in international air transpsort, analyze this issuse under our country’s law and legal practice, finally raise feasible suggestions to perfect our country’s air carrier liability.This article consists of four parts:In the first part the author examines the international conventions govern this issue. The Warsaw Convention dose not include mental injury, thus air carrier needn’t bear the liability for passenger’s mental injury. The subsequent amendment of Warsaw Convention failed to incorporate mental injury. Although The Montreal Convention continues to use “bodily injury”, the author considers that under this convention air carrier should bear the liability of mental injury.The second part pays more attention to the analysis on the judicial practice in international air trasport, mainly about American judical practice. To sum up, the judicial practice of America exists two types of mental injury cases. The first type is purely mental injury which develops at a circuitous way, finally the case Eastern Airlines INC.v.Floyd ruled that purely mental injury can not get remedy. The second type is mental injury accompanied by bodily injury, this type of case can be soreted to two types. The first kind is mental injury caused by bodily injury which can get remedy, the premise to recovery in this type is prove the nexus between bodily injury and mental injury.The second kind is mental injury with physical manifestation which can not get remedy. The author also discusses another approach in resolving this issue in American judical practice, by introducing rules of international private law and applying domestic law to determine whether air carrier should bear the liability of mental injury. This approach is not permissable in international law.In the third part the author examined law and legal practice on the compensation of mental injury in air carrier in China, drawing a conclusion that only the general law regulates the mental injury issue of air carrier, and it allows mental injury when personal rights are violated, the special law leaves the question alone. Then the author analyzes the legal practice of mental injury in international air carrier happened in china, point out the problems reflected in thoes two cases. These two cases also indicate that air carrier bear the liability of mental injury is approvable in our country’s legal practice.The final part discusses the feasible of mental injury in air carrier in China, the development of air trasport provides economic base and the international law and domestic law offer legal base. Finally the author raises suggestions to reform our country’s air carrier liability.