2nd annual assembly of the wala
DESCRIPTION
2nd ANNUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE WALA. Ciudad Real – Castilla – La Mancha 17th – 19th May 2009. POSSIBLE EXONERATION OF AIRPORT FROM LIABILITY FOR BIRD STRIKE DAMAGE. Ciudad Real , 17 – 19 May 2009. Split Airport. Split Airport – Croatia. Ante Matijaca. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
2nd ANNUAL ASSEMBLY OF
THE WALA
Ciudad Real – Castilla – La Mancha 17th – 19th May 2009
POSSIBLE EXONERATION OF POSSIBLE EXONERATION OF AIRPORT FROM LIABILITY AIRPORT FROM LIABILITY FOR BIRD STRIKE DAMAGEFOR BIRD STRIKE DAMAGE
Split Airport – CroatiaSplit Airport – Croatia
Split Airport
Ante MatijacaAnte Matijaca
Ciudad Real , 17 – 19 May 2009Ciudad Real , 17 – 19 May 2009
L I A B I L I T Y
Human aspect Financial aspect
- Aircraft owner/operator is first party who may suffer significant damage
- Airport operator is first party to wich damage compensation claim will be put
I N T R O D U C T I O N (1)I N T R O D U C T I O N (1)
A I R P O R T S
Big & Small
International & Local
Public & Private
Civil & Military
D U T I E S
Take-off, landing, parking
Passengers, baggage and cargohandling
I N T R O D U C T I O N (2)I N T R O D U C T I O N (2)
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE – Obligatory - legal relation in which one side is liable to repair damage caused to other side, and the other
side is entitled to demand such reparation
KIND OF LIABILITY
Contractual andnon-contractual
Subjective and objective
Proper liability andliability for others
L E G A L C A S E SL E G A L C A S E SCountry In favour of
plaintiff In favour of
defendant Unknown
result Total
ARGENTINA - - 1 1
CROATIA 3 - - 3
FRANCE 1 1 - 2
GERMANY 1/2 1/2 - 1
ITALY 2 - 1 3
THE NETHERLANDS - 1 - 1
SPAIN 1 2 - 3
UNITED KINGDOM 1 1 - 2
U S A 8 5 1 14
Total 16 + 1/2 10 + 1/2 3 30
COUNTRY # CASES PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
ARGENTINA 1 Airline Company Airport Ministry of Defence
CROATIA 3 Insurance CompanyAirline Company
Airport (2) Insurance Company
FRANCE 2 Private Company
Insurance Company (7)
Airline Company
Airport (2) State, Chamber of
Commerce, General Manager
ITALY 3 Airline Company (2) Insurance Company
Airport (2) Ministry of Transport, Port Authority, ATC, CAA,
General Manager
GERMANY 1 Private Company Private Person
THE NETHERLANDS 1 Airline Company Airport
SPAIN 3 Airline Company (3) Airport (3)
UNITED KINGDOM 2 Airline Company (2) Airport (2) CAA, County,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 14
Insurance Company (3) Airline Company (5) Private Person (3) Private Company (2)
Bank, City, CAA, Environmental
Organization (2), Lawyer Office
Airport (2) Port Authority (2),Airline Company, County, State
(8), City (5), CAA, Aircraft Manufacturer, Engine Manufacturer, General
Manager, ATC, Ministry of Defence
Private Person2%
Airlines Company2%
ATC5%
General Manager5%
CAA5%
Ministry of Transport
2%
Engine Manufacturer
2% Private Company5%
Department of Defence
2%
County5%
Aircraft Manufacturer
2%
Port Authority7%
City11%
Airport27%
State18%
D E F E N D A N T SD E F E N D A N T S
ANSWER A QUESTIONANSWER A QUESTION
- What are the main reason why an airport operator
is the first who will be sued?
TRY TO EXPLAINTRY TO EXPLAIN
- What are the possibilities of exoneration of airport from liability in case of bird strike?
EFFORTS OF AIRPORTS (1) EFFORTS OF AIRPORTS (1) - To carry out necessary inspection of runways, taxiways, and other manoeuvring areas;
- To warn pilots about possible presnce of birds and other animals at or in the vicinity of airport;
- To realise proper design, construction operation and maintenance of airport areas and buildings;
- To implement proper manner of land use;
- To implement proper grass policy;
EFFORTS OF AIRPORTS (2)EFFORTS OF AIRPORTS (2) - To implement proper manner of zoning in the vicinity of airports;
- To use different kind of adequate scaring devices;
- To obtain certificates for: operation of airport, airworthiness of aircrafts and construction of engines;
- Activities on permanent improvement in awareness of bird hazard;
- To ensure sufficient financial resources to take necessary measures and activities;
EFFORTS OF AIRPORTS (3)EFFORTS OF AIRPORTS (3)
- To have various specialists and other educated personnel at its premanent disposal;
- To realise timely and accurate communication among all air traffic participants (airport personnel, air traffic controlers and air carrier personnel) in case of bird hazard or bird strike;
- To register all appropriate statistical dana, as well as all other necessary records.
Omissions & Consequences
Canadian Airport Wildlife Management Bulletin No. 23
• In case of : - material damage - injury of persons or
- death of personsas a result of bird strike
AIRPORT OPERATORS
lack of proper procedures
lack of adequate bird control
failure to takeother activities
L E G A L P R O C E E D I N G S
LIABILITY IN CIVIL AVIATIONLIABILITY IN CIVIL AVIATION
1. AIR TRAFFIC PARTICIPANT LIABILITY
2. THIRD PARTY LIABILITY
- Airport operator
- Aircraft operator
- ATC agency
- Chicago, Warsaw, Montreal Convention- National regulations
- Rome Convention (1952)- Montreal Protocol (1978)
P O T E N T I A L L I A B I L I T Y
1. DAMAGE - Direct damage (material damage of an aircraft or third persons on the ground)
E L E M E N T S
- The extent and amount of damage - The moment of bird strike
- Indirect damage (profit loss, passengers redirection, goodwill loss, inspection et al.) - Non-material damage (injures, mental stress or death of passengers, crew et al.)
2. CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING OF DAMAGE LIABILITY - The exact point of bird strike
- Complete airport liability - Partial airport liability - Airport exoneration from liability
- Consequeces of bird strike with regard to safety of further flight
4. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
3. WHO IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGE ?
- Activities undertaken to avoid bird strike
- Airport operator is the first party against which legal proceedings may be taken
26th International Bird Strike Committee ConferenceWarsaw, May 2003
Q U E S T I O N ?
If bird strike happens outside bounded and strictly determined
airport area, who is than responsible for occured damage ?
m a r s h l a n d P A N T A N
RNW 05
Airport boundary
EXCLUSION FROM LIABILITYEXCLUSION FROM LIABILITY
AIRPORT LIABILITY CIVIL LAW
ELEMENTS :
2. Successful defence;
3. Knowledge and experience of the judge in this matter;
1. Prevention at or in the vicinity of an airport;
4. Sufficient number of qualitative proofs.
QUALITATIVE PROOFS
1. To have all facts completely and correctly established
2. To prove that everything that had to be done was done, and eventual damage occured without the fault of a defendant
Airport operator shall not be liable for damage occasioned by bird strike if it proves that it had taken all available measures and activities that could reasonably be required to avoid that strike, or if it proves that it had been impossible to take such measures or activities, especially due to safety reasons.
BIRD STRIKE = EVENT caused by
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
The extraordinary circumstances justifying airport operator behaviour at the moment of bird strike must be extraordinary in the sense of necessity to maintain total safety of flight.
Meteorological conditions
unusual
with birds’ behaviour and with operation of the concerned flight
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
&
BIRDS’BEHAVIOUR
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
WILFUL MISCONDUCT
NEGLIGENCE
as intentional performance of an act knowing that its performance will probably result in damage, or as intentional performance of an act in a manner that
implies reckless disregard of its probable consequences
=
failure to take reasonable, ordinary care
=
INSURANCE ASPECTThe insurance covers aircraft operators, as well as airport operators.
Bird strike risks are within frame of aircraft operator property insurance, and of airport liability insurance.
Lloyd’s building London
Kinds of insurances:
- Property insurance (airport operator; aircraft; goods and baggage – against loss or damage);
- Persons insurance (airport operator, passengers and crew on board of aircraft – against accidents);
- Aircraft operator liability insurance (passengers and third persons damages; goods);
- Airport liability insurance.
PROPOSALS & SUGESTIONS
- To acknowledge that bird hazards exist;
- To assess legal implications of airport bird hazards;
- To assign responsibility and delegate authority for developing, initiating and maintaining of effective bird management program;
- To identify sources of technical assistance;
- To identify bird hazards;
- To acquire knowledge about bird management program and to exercise it periodically;
- To allocate resources, funds, and personnel;
- To develop routine training programs;
- To initiate bird management program;
-To develop qualitative control procedures;
- To maintain daily records of bird management program;
- To evaluate bird management program;
- To establish positive bird strike reporting procedure.
C O N C L U S I O NC O N C L U S I O N
- Liability for damages caused by bird strikes within
airport responsibility area represents the risk that,
obviously, brings into question the whole system of
measures predicted for prevention of such events.
- From the aspect of presumed liability the person in charge is obliged to prove that, in definite
circumstances, all required actions were
undertaken in order to avoid definite event.
- Every singular case of wildlife strike represents the
possibility for evaluation of undertaking of
protection measures, and it brings all participants
in air traffic into question whether an airport does
everything predicted in safety instructions or
similar acts in order to avoid wildlife strikes.
- Every act and action of an airport referred to
application of safety measures must be entered in
respective official records, in order to enable its
eventual identification and demonstration.
Contrariwise, even on the assumption that safety
measures are respected, there exists a practical
possibility that an airport will be charged for
damage.
Hrvatski English
BIRD STRIKE COMMITTEE CROATIA
www.caacro.hr/birdstrike
Ante Ante MatijacaMatijaca
Thank you very much for your attention