Airline travel is still one of the safest methods of transportation, but with three large-scale airline disasters in the past five months, it doesn’t feel like it. Since March, two flights have disappeared – Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 on March 8 and Air Algerie Flight 5017 on July 24 – and a third, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, crashed while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17.
Because of the unusual circumstances of the Flight 17 crash, the future of compensation for the victims’ families is uncertain.
Malaysia Airlines compensates families regardless of fault
Flight 17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile, but it’s hard to prove for certain who is responsible. The Boeing 777 jetliner was flying over eastern Ukraine near the Ukraine-Russia border, a region of unrest since early this year, when the missile struck at 33,000 feet, killing all 298 aboard.
The victims’ next of kin are entitled to compensation under the Montreal Convention, a multilateral treaty adopted by 107 parties in 2003. In case of an accident, the airline is held strictly liable, meaning that it must pay damages whether responsible for the accident or not.
The limit per passenger is approximately $174,000. Family members may also be entitled to additional compensation, depending on fault. The pilot or the airline may be sued for negligence, for example, or the manufacturer may be sued for product liability.
Many U.S. states allow for “comparative fault,” in which multiple responsible parties share the blame. For example, the manufacturer might be found 60 percent responsible for faulty instruments, and the pilot might be found 40 percent responsible for careless behavior. Governmental agencies in charge of airline safety, like the Federal Aviation Administration, can also be sued.
Potential defendants in a Flight 17 lawsuit
If the victims’ families want to pursue additional compensation, they will first need to determine who was at fault, then decide if pursuing a lawsuit is worth their time and money. Here are potential defendants, and the outlook for a successful claim:
1. The plane manufacturer. No evidence has surfaced indicating mechanical failure contributed to the accident. It’s unlikely that the next of kin will pursue this kind of lawsuit
2. The airline. Because the plane crashed due to a missile strike and not human error or mechanical failure, the airline has a strong position to defend itself against claims of liability. Legal expert John Mulligan said in The Wall Street Journal that the airline could be considered at fault for flying through airspace over a region of known conflict.
Attorney Mark Dombroff disagrees, saying that because there were no published sanctions against flying in that space, it would be hard to prove liability. Flight 17’s path over Ukraine was a common route for flights from Europe to Southeast Asia. The airspace over eastern Ukraine has since closed.
3. Pro-Russian separatists. Many are placing blame for the crash on pro-Russia rebels. The sheer impracticality of finding the responsible parties, pursing legal action and enforcing a judgment against them makes this an unfavorable route for plaintiffs.
4. Russia. If the pro-Russian separatists were responsible, then part of the blame may also be placed on the Russian government for arming them. But again, the likelihood of succeeding with such a suit is miniscule and not worth pursuing.
Any future litigation will likely occur in the Netherlands or Malaysia.
3 comments
Reallist
No one is responsible for compensation... society has no obligation... the perpetrators will never be proven guilty... unfortunate, yes... however, as is often said, shite happens... the 911 disaster was tragic... however, government (taxpayer) compensation for survivors was absurd and should have never happened... lack of personal responsibility is the 21st century's road to destruction...
josie bitner
I apologize for the typos in my message; iI hope you get the gist of my message thou. Think outside the box. Josie
josie bitner
I find it interesting that you have limited your options of possible liable parties for the downing of Mh17. You have not included the elephant in the room.......the Kiev Govt......Malaysia has published findings that the plane was shot down in midair. Russia has published findings of a Kiev Govt closely following the Mh17 with sateliette proof. How us it that a reporter like yourself can fall short of the facts and truth of this story. Perhaps you rely on mid/disinformation of our govt as it limits what news agencies are allowed to publish. If you are serious about you must dig deeper, beyond the surface propaganda of the corporate owned US govt.