THELEGALSTANDPOINT

Hello, good afternoon, readers! It’s wonderful to be writing to you again after completing my undergraduate studies at the University of Ibadan during the hiatus. Now, let’s go. This week’s article focuses on the rights of airline passengers. As a passenger, the airline has a common law duty of care to protect you and your belongings. Breaching this duty can result in damages.

The Supreme Court addressed airline liability to passengers in the case of Harka Air Serv. Nig. Ltd v. Keazor (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1264) 320. The court outlined that an airline’s liability to its passengers can arise from various scenarios, including injuries sustained on board, death during the journey, damage or loss of goods, delayed or denied boarding, and actions during flight operations.

By virtue of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention 1929, a carrier is liable for the damages sustained inthe event of the death of a passenger or injury to passenger, if the accident which caused the damages so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. To establish liability, the claimant must prove:

1. that the passenger got wounded or suffered/ bodily injury;
2. that the injury arose from the accident; and
3. that the accident occurred on board the aircraft or during the course of embarking(c)or disembarking.

In Harka Air Service Nigeria’s case, the plaintiff, now the respondent on June 24, 1995, boarded a flight from Kaduna to Lagos with Harka Air Services Limited. Despite adverse weather leading other airlines to cancel flights, Harka Air proceeded, encountering turbulence and eventually crash-landing in Lagos. This incident caused panic among passengers, with the respondent sustaining injuries, losing personal belongings, and requiring medical attention, significantly impacting their life and work. Believing the crash stemmed from the airline’s negligence, the respondent sought compensation but faced dismissal, leading to legal action. 

Initially, the Federal High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding damages in Naira. However, the Court of Appeal partially overturned this decision, acknowledging evidence of misconduct but adjusting damages to $11,000 in US Dollars for general damages. The appellant’s liability is rooted in Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929  which outlines that an airline cannot use the convention’s provisions to limit its liability if the damage is caused by willful misconduct or fault equivalent to willful misconduct. Additionally, if the damage is caused by an agent of the airline acting within their employment scope, the airline cannot use these provisions to limit liability either.

The Supreme Court defined Misconduct as actions where the person knows they are doing wrong but continues anyway or acts recklessly without caring about the outcome. Horabin v. BOAC. (1952) 2 ALL ER 1006.  Goldman v. Thai Airways International Limited (1983) 3 ALL ER693. In this case, the court held that it is clear from the records that on June 24, 1995, the airline operated a flight from Kaduna to Lagos despite other airlines cancelling due to bad weather. The pilot didn’t receive clearance to land and didn’t respond properly to the Air Traffic Controller’s inquiries. The plane was flying higher than usual and touched down late on the runway. The trial judge rightly concluded that the airline’s actions amounted to willful misconduct, justifying a larger compensation award. The pilot consistently took risky actions, knowing they were wrong and disregarding the potential consequences, leading to the unfortunate outcome of the flight. As a result of this, the Court upheld the decision of the trial and lower courts. 

Also, in this case, there was  a question about whether Nigerian courts can issue judgments in foreign currencies if it’s deemed appropriate. The Supreme Court confirmed that they do have this power. The appellant in this case breached their duty of care to the respondent, causing damages. Therefore, the Court of Appeal was correct in awarding damages in the foreign currency as claimed by the respondent. This decision aligns with previous legal precedents such as Koya v U.B.A. Ltd. (1997) 1NWLR (Pt. 481) 251; Nwankwo v. E.D.C.S. (2002) 1NWLR (Pt. 749) 513; U.B.A. Ltd. v. Ibhafidon (1994)1 NWLR (Pt. 318) 90; Broadline Enterprises Ltd. v Monterey Maritime Corp. (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417). 

Furthermore, in Emirate Airline v. Ngonadi (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1413), where the respondent was denied boarding and no justification was provided, the court held that the appellant was liable. 

In conclusion, passengers have rights protected by the law, and airlines must uphold their duty of care. Instances of negligence or misconduct can lead to liability and compensation for affected passengers. Nigerian courts have the power to ensure justice is served, including awarding damages in foreign currencies when necessary.

Thank you for reading❤️. See you next week.🙏

Hello Readers,

In order to prepare for exams, we would be taking a break from the publication of articles for six(6) weeks.

While we are on hiatus, you can read up on past articles. https://thelegalstandpoint.law.blog/

We will be back on May 9nd, 2024.

We are sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. Thank you.

Upon being called to the Bar, an individual becomes a lawyer and enters the legal profession. Within this profession, certain standards of conduct are not just encouraged but mandated. These standards are delineated by the Rules of Professional Misconduct for the legal profession (RPC), a foundational legal framework that prescribes the accepted code of behavior for lawyers.

The principle of law, as held in NBA v Iteogu (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 996) 219 is that what amounts to professional misconduct is not defined in the rules of professional conduct (RPC). The court further held that any conduct of any legal practitioner in relation to his practice of the profession in relation to his client that runs contrary to rules or any breach of the rules may amount to misconduct, and any conduct that constitutes an infraction of the acceptable standard of behavior or ethics of the legal profession, or any conduct which connotes conduct so despicable and morally reprehensible as to bring the legal profession into disrepute, will amount to professional misconduct.

The general responsibility of a lawyer, as provided in Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, is that a lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner. This responsibility includes attending to the client’s inquiry.