Whatever next for airlines: Does this recent case set a worrying precedent?
A judge sitting at the County Court in Birmingham has awarded a passenger and her family compensation under Regulation 261/2004 for a nine hour flight delay which arose following the actions of a passenger who accidently broke the emergency door handle on the flight before her's. A part had to be flown in to repair the plane and there was further delay when the crew attempting the repair accidently deployed the emergency slide.
Regulation 261/2004 provides for a fixed level of compensation based upon the distance of the flight, in cases where they are delayed. Airlines can avoid the compensation payment if the delay is caused by "extraordinary circumstances".
However, recent case law has moved towards the imposition of a strict liability test which results in an airline being liable even if they were not at fault – for example, in one case an airline was liable even though there were no steps they could have taken to prevent the fault arising – and this seems to be the rationale applied in this case as clearly the airline had no actual control over the passenger who broke the door.
Read more: Star Wars Day shows us the droids we're looking for
The decision is troubling for airlines as it appears nothing could have been done to prevent the accidental damage; the worry for an airline is the scope of their responsibility for remote and somewhat freak incidents.
This judgment, although not binding, has the potential to apply by analogy to deliberate acts where, for example, a delay is caused by a drunken passenger. Airlines already have powers to exercise 'control' over passengers, in the sense that they can refuse boarding to a drunken passenger and can refuse to serve a passenger alcohol on the plane if the commander gives an instruction to that effect in order to secure the safety of passengers or crew.
Read more: You being bored at work is probably the least of your employer’s worries
Would an airline be liable to pay compensation for flight delay in those circumstances?
If a similar logic is applied to the recent Birmingham court decision, then arguably the behaviour of a drunken passenger may not amount to an "extraordinary circumstance" so as to remove the obligation from the airline to pay flight delay compensation.
Freak or innocuous incidents like this can have wide ranging ramifications and could lead to airlines adopting a much stricter approach to passenger management. Airline customer focus might have to be tempered to minimise the potential for delays to their flight schedules and the risks of paying out significant sums of money for flight delay compensation. Options may include revising their boarding strategies, a re think on alcohol policies or perhaps even use of CCTV and the like.
Anybody for body cameras for cabin crew or breathalysers at the boarding gate?