Airline Liability for Lost Baggage in International Carriage

The court held that the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention of 1999) (https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/secretariat/legal/Administrative%20Packages/mtl99_ar.pdf), to which the state concerned acceded by virtue of specific domestic legislation, is the law applicable to the contract of carriage at issue — whether as an international carriage directly governed by its provisions, or as domestic law in force under the local civil aviation legislation, which expressly refers to the rules of this convention.

The court found the carrier liable for the loss of the bag, on the basis that the company itself had acknowledged — in its pleadings and internal correspondence — that the bag was in fact lost and had not been delivered to the passenger, a matter no longer in dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the air carrier's liability for the loss of checked baggage arises upon mere proof of the loss, without the need to prove any additional fault, because this liability rests on a quasi-objective basis under the international convention.

The court explained that a passenger's claim against the air carrier for loss of baggage is a claim for compensation calculated according to the criteria set by the international convention, not exceeding a specific maximum limit prescribed therein per passenger, calculated in a uniform international unit of account converted into the local currency at an exchange rate obtained from the state's competent monetary authority. The only exception to this maximum limit arises where the passenger, when handing over the baggage, submits a special declaration of interest in its value on delivery at the point of destination, in return for payment of a supplementary fee.

Since the case file contained nothing to prove that the passenger had disclosed the value of her bag's contents to the company, or paid an additional amount to secure coverage exceeding the conventional maximum limit, the carrier's liability remained governed by that maximum limit, regardless of the actual claimed value of the lost belongings.

The international convention provides that the limits of liability referred to above do not apply if it is proven that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier or its servants, done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result — which corresponds to the concept of "gross negligence" or "wilful misconduct" in comparative legal systems.

Although the passenger proved that the company was at fault (loss of the bag, ineffectiveness of the tracking system, and failure to comply with the internationally adopted baggage-tracking procedures), the court held that this fault did not, in itself, rise to the level of "gross negligence coupled with knowledge," because this degree of fault requires specific proof that the company (or its employees) knew that damage would probably result from their conduct, and nevertheless continued that conduct.

Since the court had referred the case for investigation specifically for this purpose, and the passenger, through her two witnesses, proved nothing beyond the estimated value of the bag's contents, without providing any evidence of that particular degree of gross negligence on the part of the company, the court concluded that the passenger had failed to prove this exception, and that compensation therefore remained governed by the maximum conventional ceiling.

The court did not set out separate, extensive reasons for rejecting the claim for moral damages; however, the tenor of the judgment indicates that the compensation due for loss of baggage under the international convention is a comprehensive compensation governed by that same maximum ceiling, and that, accordingly, any additional compensation — such as moral damages — remains subsumed within that ceiling and is not awarded separately once the ceiling is deemed exhausted by the material compensation awarded.

The court disregarded the request to order the company to submit a detailed statement on the tracking of the bag, considering it immaterial to the case, since submitting it would, at best, prove nothing more than the locations through which the bag passed, without constituting evidence of the gross negligence legally required to exceed the maximum compensation limit. The court likewise disregarded the request to administer the supplementary oath, considering that ordering it is a matter within the court's own discretion, exercised on its own initiative whenever it deems necessary, and it found the case file sufficient to form its conviction without the need for it. Finally, the court disregarded the request to contact the airport administration to obtain surveillance camera footage, since it was submitted for the first time after the procedural stage designated for that purpose had lapsed.