Is the airline liable for puncture?
This question was also raised by the Regional Court of Stuttgart in the context of the judgment of the 07.12.2017 (Az. 5 S 103 / 17).
Article as download
Download our Article free of charge as PDF .
Stuttgart Regional Court ruled that the damage to an aircraft tire caused by a foreign object on the runway was not an exceptional circumstance i. P. D. Type 5 para. 3 represents the passenger rights vo. Consequently, the airline has to compensate the passengers for the delay caused by this incident.
The plaintiff had already been heard in the first instance before the district court Nürtingen (judgment of the 28.03.2017, Az. 10 C 1977 / 16) right. The appeal of the defendant airline was rejected by the Regional Court of Stuttgart.
What happened?
The decision was based on an incident of 20.04.2016 at the airport of Mallorca. The plaintiff had booked a flight from Mallorca to Stuttgart, which had a delay of more than 7 hours because of the said puncture.
The defendant airline refused a compensation payment and relied on an exceptional circumstance under Article 5 para. 3 Passenger Rights Regulation.
The district court Nürtingen had granted the action. The claim of the plaintiff is not excluded under Article 5 (3) of the Passenger Rights Regulation, as the damage caused by the defendant does not constitute an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of the Regulation. It is not an incident which is not part of the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned. The danger posed by objects on the runway is a well-known, common phenomenon that is not outside the ordinary, but rather inextricably linked to aviation. This is already apparent from the fact that airport operators regularly carry out cleaning of runways.
With the appeal, the defendant is pursuing the motion to dismiss. An exceptional circumstance was wrongly denied. It was wrong in law to use the criterion of “part of the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned” as the decisive interpretation measure for the element of the “exceptional circumstance”. The frequency of the occurrence of certain problems does not matter, so it is not indicative that airport operators regularly try to prevent damage caused by foreign objects by inspecting the lanes. The decisive factor is rather whether the relevant event is a controllable occurrence - which is not the case in the present case.
Even the Court of Appeals did not follow this view of the airline.
And what was that "sticking point"?
The issue in the present case was - as so often - the definition of the term "extraordinary circumstances".
As to the interpretation of that term, the Landgericht Stuttgart rightly refers to recitals no. 14 and 15 of the Passenger Rights Regulation. The LG Stuttgart also observes the principle established by the European Court of Justice, according to which the constituent elements leading to the elimination of the compensation must be interpreted strictly in order to ensure a high level of protection for the passengers. According to the ECJ case-law, the starting point is whether the event causing the delay is inextricably linked to the operation of an aircraft or, by its nature or cause, is not part of the normal pursuit of the business of the air carrier concerned is not in fact manageable by it (see ECJ, Order of the 14 November 2014 - C-394 / 14). Accordingly, extrinsic circumstances, such as a sabotage or terrorist act, natural phenomena such as a volcanic eruption, or an official order affecting air traffic, are extraordinary events.
In support of its decision, the Stuttgart Regional Court also cites the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the question of whether damage to an aircraft caused by a stair vehicle is to be classified as an exceptional circumstance. The ECJ is primarily concerned with whether the damaging vehicle is necessarily used to transport passengers in air traffic, so that the airlines are regularly confronted with situations that arise from the use of such stair vehicles (ECJ - Siewert / Condor, judgment of November 14.11.2014, 394, case C-14/20). The BGH has also decided on this basis that nothing else applies to a collision with a baggage cart, since such a cart is also necessarily used when transporting passengers by air. An aviation company is therefore regularly confronted in a comparable manner with situations that result from the use of such vehicles (BGH, judgment of December 2016, 75 - X ZR 15/XNUMX).
The Stuttgart Court then applies the principles developed in those decisions to the present case:
“The application of the principles outlined here to the controversial circumstance of a foreign body on the runway shows that such a foreign body may have an effect on air traffic, as it were,“ from outside ”. However, the circumstance cannot be compared with the incidents mentioned in recitals (14) and (15) of the Passenger Rights Regulation, such as political instability or weather conditions; Nor can it be compared with the examples cited by the ECJ (loc. cit.), such as acts of terrorism or volcanic eruptions. In the opinion of the Chamber, if an aircraft tire is damaged by a foreign object on the runway, there is (still) an inseparable connection with the system for operating the aircraft. Airplanes naturally have to use runways, which is why airlines are regularly confronted in a comparable manner with situations that result from the use of the lanes. However, it is undisputed that these foreign bodies are often found, which is why airport operators regularly clean the runways. The soiling of the roadways is therefore a fact that air carriers usually have to accept when using them - if necessary. The presence of foreign objects on runways is consequently - comparable to the use of stair vehicles or luggage trolleys - inextricably linked to the system for operating an aircraft. (...)
The fact that the aviation companies - as the appeal states - ultimately cannot control the presence of foreign bodies, since the cleaning of the lanes is the responsibility of the respective airport operators, cannot justify a different assessment. This is not at all important in the result; As shown, the controllability of a danger is not the ultimate decisive criterion. "
How is this legally to be assessed?
The decision of the LG Stuttgart is convincing. An exceptional circumstance does not exist in the present case, because for the qualification of a circumstance as "exceptional" it is decisive that it differs from the events that typically have to be expected when carrying out a single flight. It is about the question of whose sphere of risk the event is attributed to. Measured against these principles, there is no exceptional circumstance in the present case. This is particularly due to the narrow interpretation of the term “extraordinary circumstances” required by the ECJ.
The LG Stuttgart has explicitly approved the revision. Should there be a decision of the BGH in the context of the revision, then we are to assume that the judgment of the LG Stuttgart is upheld.
If you are also affected by a flight delay, please contact us! Sir Lawyer Michael Gabler will inform you about existing compensation claims and enforce them consistently!
Your comment
Participate in discussion?Leave us your comment!