Abstract
The scope of application of the provisions for limitation of liability contained in the Warsaw and Rome Conventions is determined by at least two circles. The first and largest circle is the one defining the cases to which the Conventions will apply. The second circle encloses the liabilities which are limited by the limitation provisions of each Convention. In the following observations we shall first deal with the Warsaw Convention, thereafter with the two Rome Conventions, in order to conclude with two paragraphs in which some specific problems common to all three Conventions will be discussed: the applicability of the limits to recourse actions and to legal interests and legal costs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
It is believed that air carriers performing two stretches of carriage, interrupted by a stretch of surface transportation, cannot be considered successive carriers, at least not when the surface transportation is not also performed by one of them. A contrary view is apparently taken by G. R. Sullivan in 7 J.A.L. (1936) 1, 12.
The problem has been discussed by H. Achtnich in 1 Z.L. (1952) 323, at 325-331, holding the Convention not applicable to transportation between countries at war. A contrary view has been defended in the same review by the present author 1953, 303 sq., and by M. Bodenschatz 1954, pp. 13 sq.
Cass. 20.1.1925, G.P. 1925.2.721 and Cass. 12.6.1950. Bull. de Transports, 1950, p. 624 note Durand. See also Nánássy (1946) p. 612, and P. Durand in 51 B.T.I. 1943) 354, 363 sq.
Article 3 (b). The text of the Chicago Convention is rather ambiguous on the points of (1) whether only aircraft used in military, customs and police services should be deemed state aircraft (affirmed by Shawcross and Beaumont (1951) No. 208 (a) and J. C. Cooper in 17 J.A.L.C. (1950) 292 at 309), and (2) whether the Convention applies to all aircraft which are not state aircraft (Article 3 (a)). Article 30 of the Paris Convention (1919) was much clearer on both points. See also Article 1 (2) of the American Draft submitted at the Chicago Conference 1944 (Proceedings I, 555).
But see the broad interpretation of Article 22 of the 1933 Convention defended by H. Oppikofer (German delegate to the Rome Conference) in 3 Z.L. (1933) 211, at 223/24.
It is suggested that such agencies cannot be considered agents of the carrier, since they are not engaged by the carrier. Cf. J. Lacombe in 12 R.G.A. (1949) 821.
Cf. E. Rabel, Conflict of Laws. Ann Arbor, 1947, II, p. 263, and Williams (1951) pp. 135/136, who correctly makes an exception for the case where the claim for contribution arises out of some special relation, where the law governing that relation should apply.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1954 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Drion, H. (1954). Scope of Application of the Limitation of Liability Provisions. In: Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6127-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6127-7_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-5751-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6127-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive