What happened
On 31 October 2016, during a flight from Dubai to Sydney, the plaintiff opened an overhead locker in a darkened cabin to retrieve supplies for her baby. The door struck the base of her right thumb, causing a soft tissue injury that the court accepted had developed into chronic pain. Her account of a sudden drop was weighed against her husband's evidence that the door worked normally immediately afterwards and records that did not identify a locker defect.
The issues
The central question was whether an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger caused the injury, rather than simply whether an injury occurred on board. Liability arose under the federal carriers legislation and Article 17 of the Montréal Convention. The court also considered contributory negligence and which claimed conditions were causally connected to the incident.
The court's decision
The court entered judgment for Emirates with costs because the normal opening of the locker door did not establish an Article 17 accident. It found no contributory negligence, but that did not supply the missing basis for liability. A later costs decision rejected Emirates' indemnity costs application, and the Court of Appeal refused leave to challenge the factual findings.
Understanding the figures
No damages were awarded. The historical AUD 52,803.95 total was a contingent assessment in case the liability conclusion was wrong, including AUD 25,000 for future earning loss. It was not money recovered by the plaintiff and was separate from her liability for costs.
What this case shows
Proof of an onboard injury does not itself establish the accident required by the Convention. Here, evidence about the door's operation immediately afterwards and the defect reporting records outweighed the passenger's account of how it moved. The later appeal application concerned those factual findings, rather than a disputed legal test.
Why another case may differ
The result depended on this door and the evidence presented; it does not exempt airlines from all locker injuries. The court accepted chronic thumb and adjacent hand pain but did not accept that the incident caused the claimed wrist, arm and shoulder conditions. Refusal of leave was specific to the factual challenge and is not a statement of present treaty limits or the outcome of another passenger's claim.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →