In a first-of-its-kind case,
In this blog post, we outline the events that ended in a mass casualty event on
Background
UIA flight PS752, carrying 176 passengers on route to
The decision to take off came against a backdrop of heightened military tensions between
In
On
In a major escalation of tensions, on
Early on the morning of
Mere minutes after taking off from
Suing for Damages Under the
As a result of the accident, 101 individual actions and a class action were commenced in
Article 17 of the
Unlike most civil lawsuits, where a plaintiff seeking compensation must prove that the defendant's negligent actions or inaction breached the standard of care causing harm, Article 21 specifically creates a reverse onus which shifts the burden to a defendant to prove it was "not negligent" on a balance of probabilities.
Standard of Care
The Court concluded that UIA failed to meet the standard of care in conducting its risk assessment on
- It did not take into account a Federal Aviation Authority Notice to Air Missions issued prior to take off warning of the potential risk for misidentification and miscalculation in the
Tehran airport region; - Other specialized industry groups, such as Osprey, had warned of the exact risk that materialized hours before the flight and UIA took no steps to review the Osprey warnings;
- Despite the airline's own manual, and other industry documentation that required a safety risk assessment of hazards related to flying in or near conflict zones be completed, UIA's actions that morning ensured that no one could fulfil their obligation to conduct the risk assessment that was required; and,
- It failed to make the pilot of the flight (who had authority to delay or cancel the flight for safety reasons) aware of the presence of military equipment and the military activities ongoing in the region of the airport.
Causation and Foreseeability
The Court concluded that UIA failed to disprove causation based on the facts and expert testimonies in the case.
The Court decided that, but for the airline's negligence in obtaining and considering the relevant information that was reasibly available, it would have reached the same conclusion as other airlines operating in the area at the time, such as KLM and
The Court further concluded that the risk of UIA PS752 being struck by a surface to air missile was not remote, but rather reasonably foreseeable. The Court cited warnings of this risk issued by both Osprey and the
Significance of this Case and Trial
This case is the first of its kind to consider the standards to which airlines must adhere when flying in or near conflict zones.
In an interview with
"We are risk-assessing thousands of flights every day and are seeing the potential risks at close hand," Nicholson said. "All airlines, of course, prioritise the safety of passengers and crew; however, the challenge of security in volatile regions is especially acute. Traditionally, airlines have relied heavily on guidance from regulators and governments regarding airspace safety and overflight risks. However, as this case clearly demonstrates, such information is often delayed, classified, or influenced by political considerations. The outcome of the PS752 case underscores the growing risks and liabilities facing airlines and the industry rapidly needs to adjust to this."
Nicholson added: "What the Canadian ruling has shown is that the impact of such an event goes beyond the tragic loss of life. Operators carry this risk of unlimited liability, making the need for mandatory risk assessments, for regulated, forward-looking, pre-emptive risk management a clear requirement in need of advocacy."
Beyond the precedents established in this case,
These guidelines, which were developed and approved by counsel prior to the trial, included:
-
Providing advanced notice of potentially traumatic evidence and allowing individuals to step out of the courtroom if needed.
- Offering resources to assist with recognizing and coping with trauma during the trial.
- Limiting the oral testimony of a family member to prevent unnecessary distress.
- Having trauma specialists available for support.
- Maintaining regular communication between the Court and counsel to manage expectations and demystify the process for observers.
At the start and conclusion of the trial, the judge directly addressed the family members, acknowledging their loss and emphasizing that their grief was recognized throughout the proceedings.
The trauma-informed approach aimed to balance the adversarial nature of the trial with sensitivity to the participants' emotional well-being, demonstrating that a more humane and considerate process is possible without compromising legal advocacy. The guidelines and appendices used in this trial were attached to the court's reasons to serve as a resource for future cases, encouraging a broader adoption of trauma-informed practices in the legal system.
Hope Starts Here
While nothing can change the tragic loss of life that occurred on
As counsel for some of the plaintiffs in the case, we are delighted with the result of this trial and hopeful for the long-term effects it will have in our justice system. At
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Suite 3500
ON M5H 3R3
Tel: 877771 7006
E-mail: info@hshlawyers.com
URL: www.hshlawyers.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source