Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jane Watts
Sigh or relief or not?
Anyone up for a debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
the airline cannot account for each passengers health before the flight or their physiological reaction to flight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
I'd want to read the detailed judgement - has anybody seen it yet - or got a link to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Watts
I don't think it's about the airlines being responsible for the health of every passenger.
Claimants have argued that a combination of cramped flying conditions and long hours in the air give rise to the condition.
World airlines say there is no definitive proof linking DVT to air travel, but some have agreed to help a world health organisation study into whether a link exisits.
Authorities say that there should be an increase in space seating and an investigation into the effects of alcohol consumption, leg exercises as well as low cabin pressure and oxygen levels on flights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
Thanks Jon - I've read the news reports but I'm interested in the detailed judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Carrick
Ok Max. My mistake. I expect a summary will be forthcoming shortly!
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
Well, as usual several pages of judgement to wade through, but essentially it boils down to the word "accident".
Can DVT be seen as an accident ... was it due to unusual or unexpected event?
The Lords found it cannot. I tend to agree - under the strict terms of the Warsaw Convention (not English Law, not Tort, not equitable considerations) DVT appears to be too far removed from the term "accident" - in the same way as a cough, a cramp, or indigestion.
All conditions have root causes - but where those causes are present in the normal operating conditions of a service (there was nothing unusual about this flight) can an "accident" be seen?
Following the arguments to their ultimate conclusion - had the judgement gone the other way - it would end long haul flying because their is no way to prevent DVT absolutely, and there is no consideration of negligence in clause 17 of the Warsaw Convention ... so anyone getting DVT in the future would succeed.
Whilst I feel sad for those who have had their claim for compensation refused, I think it was the right decision, given the law it was being tested against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
The rights and wrongs of airline practice were not really at issue in this case. The case was about whether DVT sufferers coud claim under article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. This requires claimants to have suffered an accident. The Lords determined that DVT did not constitute an accident within the terms of the Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.