Introduction
Compensation arising from an aircraft accident is governed by a considerably more complex legal framework than the simple question of how much an airline must pay. The international or domestic character of the carriage, the passenger’s residence, the identity of the contractual and operating carriers, the causal connection between the accident and the injury, contributory negligence, the financial dependency of surviving family members and the country in which proceedings are commenced may all significantly affect the outcome.
For international passenger carriage, the principal legal instrument is the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 28 May 1999, commonly known as the Montreal Convention 1999 or MC99. It replaced much of the fragmented Warsaw system and introduced a two-tier liability regime for passenger death and bodily injury. One of its most important features is that liability for passenger death and injury is no longer governed by the traditional concept of a fixed maximum compensation ceiling.
Türkiye signed the Montreal Convention on 28 May 1999, deposited its instrument of ratification on 25 January 2011, and the Convention entered into force for Türkiye on 26 March 2011. Consequently, where international carriage between Türkiye and another State Party falls within MC99, the Convention constitutes the primary liability regime applicable to claims against the air carrier.
When Does the Montreal Convention Apply?
The decisive question is not simply where the aircraft crashed. The first issue is whether the relevant carriage constitutes “international carriage” within the meaning of MC99.
The Convention applies to international carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air for reward. The Turkish Directorate General of Civil Aviation likewise identifies MC99 as the governing framework for qualifying international air transportation.
A flight from Istanbul to London, Paris or New York will therefore generally fall within MC99 when the Convention’s territorial requirements are satisfied. A purely domestic flight such as Istanbul–Antalya, however, does not become international merely because a serious aviation accident occurs.
Domestic passenger carriage is primarily governed by Turkish law, particularly Law No. 2920 on Turkish Civil Aviation. Article 120 provides that the carrier is liable where the passenger dies or suffers bodily injury and the accident causing the damage occurred on board the aircraft or during embarking or disembarking.
Accordingly, the first task in any aviation compensation case should be to determine the legal nature and itinerary of the carriage and only then identify the applicable liability regime.
The Requirement of an “Accident”
Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention establishes carrier liability for death or bodily injury of a passenger where the accident causing the death or injury occurred on board the aircraft or in the course of embarking or disembarking.
The concept of an “accident” is therefore a central element of the claim.
International jurisprudence, particularly the approach developed in Air France v. Saks, generally treats an accident as an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger. It is not necessary for every link in the causal chain to be unexpected; an unusual or unexpected external event forming part of that chain may be sufficient.
Consequently, Article 17 is not confined to catastrophic crashes. Serious turbulence, an abnormal evacuation event, malfunctioning cabin equipment and, depending on the circumstances, unusual conduct or failures by airline personnel may potentially constitute an accident.
By contrast, the mere fact that a medical emergency occurs during a flight does not automatically establish Montreal liability. If the condition resulted exclusively from the passenger’s internal reaction to the normal and expected operation of the aircraft, without an external unusual event, the accident requirement may not be satisfied.
This distinction is particularly significant in cases involving heart attacks, asthma, thrombosis and pre-existing medical conditions.
151,880 SDR Is Not a Maximum Compensation Limit
One of the most significant misconceptions concerning the Montreal Convention is that the SDR figure applicable to passenger death or injury represents the maximum amount recoverable from the airline.
It does not.
Following ICAO’s most recent revision, the relevant threshold increased from 128,821 SDR to 151,880 SDR per passenger with effect from 28 December 2024.
The figure of 151,880 SDR should therefore be understood as a liability threshold rather than a damages cap.
For proved damages up to 151,880 SDR, the carrier cannot escape liability merely by proving that it was not negligent. This first tier effectively establishes strict liability in relation to the carrier’s fault. ICAO describes the current system on this basis.
Where damages exceed 151,880 SDR, a second tier applies. Liability does not automatically cease at that point. Instead, the carrier must prove either that the damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, or that the damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.
If the carrier cannot establish one of those defences, compensation may exceed 151,880 SDR and there is no monetary ceiling under the second tier. This is one of the fundamental differences between MC99 and the historic Warsaw regime.
A young passenger with substantial future earnings, a victim suffering permanent catastrophic disability or a claimant requiring lifelong medical and nursing care may therefore have a claim substantially exceeding 151,880 SDR.
Claims Following the Death of a Passenger
The Montreal Convention establishes the liability framework, but it does not exhaustively determine every issue concerning who is entitled to sue and how the respective financial losses of family members should be calculated.
Where Turkish substantive law applies to these residual issues, Article 53 of the Turkish Code of Obligations recognises, among other losses, funeral expenses, medical and loss-of-earning expenses incurred before death where death was not immediate, and losses suffered by persons who have been deprived of the deceased’s financial support.
The wording is important because compensation for loss of support is not framed exclusively as an inheritance claim. Therefore, entitlement is not necessarily restricted to statutory heirs. A spouse, children, parents or another person who can establish the required relationship of financial support may, depending on the facts, possess an independent claim.
For example, where a 35-year-old passenger with a stable professional income and two young children dies in an aircraft accident, damages cannot reasonably be assessed merely by reference to funeral costs. The deceased’s age, income, career prospects, expected period of economic activity, percentage of income devoted to family support and the period during which children would probably have received support may all become relevant to actuarial calculation.
Non-pecuniary claims by close family members may also arise where Turkish law applies. Their treatment in an MC99 action must, however, be considered alongside Articles 17 and 29 of the Convention. Article 29 excludes punitive, exemplary and other non-compensatory damages. The Turkish concept of moral compensation is legally distinct from Anglo-American punitive damages, but its availability and scope must still be assessed within the Convention framework and the applicable domestic law.
Compensation for Bodily Injury
Where the passenger survives but suffers serious injury, the economic value of the claim may extend far beyond immediate hospital costs.
Under Turkish law, bodily injury damages may include medical expenses, loss of earnings, losses resulting from temporary or permanent reduction of working capacity and losses arising from impairment of the victim’s economic future.
A passenger suffering spinal cord damage, neurological disability, loss of limb function or an inability to return to his or her profession may therefore have substantial future claims. Further surgery, rehabilitation, prosthetics, physical therapy, nursing care and long-term professional income losses may all need to be calculated.
For this reason, early settlement of a catastrophic injury claim before the medical prognosis and permanent disability are fully understood may create substantial risk for the injured passenger.
Psychiatric Injury and PTSD
A particularly important contemporary issue under Article 17 is whether psychiatric injury may constitute “bodily injury.”
Historically, purely emotional distress was often treated differently from physical injury. More recent international jurisprudence, however, demonstrates a broader approach where the psychiatric condition reaches a medically identifiable pathological level.
In Case C-111/21, Laudamotion, the Court of Justice of the European Union addressed a passenger who developed post-traumatic stress disorder following an aircraft accident involving an engine explosion and emergency evacuation. The jurisprudence recognised that a medically established psychiatric injury reaching a pathological level may fall within Article 17(1).
Accordingly, PTSD, severe anxiety disorders or comparable psychiatric conditions should not automatically be excluded from aviation compensation claims. Medical evidence establishing the diagnosis and causation between the accident and the condition will nevertheless be essential.
Contributory Negligence
The passenger-friendly nature of MC99 does not mean that claimant conduct is irrelevant.
Article 20 permits the carrier to obtain full or partial exoneration where it proves that the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom that claimant derives his or her rights, caused or contributed to the damage.
For example, failure to wear a seat belt despite clear mandatory instructions during severe turbulence, deliberate disregard of emergency evacuation instructions or comparable conduct may give rise to contributory negligence arguments.
Nevertheless, any passenger fault must be separated carefully from deficiencies in pilot conduct, maintenance, safety procedures, training or the carrier’s broader organisation.
International Jurisdiction: Where Can Proceedings Be Brought?
One of the major advantages of the Montreal Convention for accident victims is its relatively broad jurisdictional framework.
Claims may generally be brought in a State Party where the carrier is domiciled, where it has its principal place of business, where it has the place of business through which the contract was made, or at the place of destination.
For passenger death and bodily injury cases, Article 33(2) also provides the important “fifth jurisdiction.” Where the detailed conditions of that provision are satisfied, proceedings may be commenced in the State in which the passenger had his or her principal and permanent residence at the time of the accident. ICAO likewise identifies the passenger’s principal and permanent residence as one of the five potential jurisdictional bases created by MC99.
A crucial distinction should nevertheless be made: the country in which the aircraft happened to crash does not automatically obtain Montreal jurisdiction merely because the accident occurred there. One of Article 33’s jurisdictional connecting factors must still be satisfied.
Thus, where a Turkish resident is travelling from Istanbul to Paris and an accident occurs over or in a third country, it would be incorrect simply to conclude that proceedings cannot be commenced in Türkiye. If the passenger’s principal and permanent residence was in Türkiye and the carrier-related requirements of Article 33(2) are satisfied, Turkish jurisdiction may potentially be available.
The selection of forum may have substantial financial consequences because procedural rules, evidence, interest, methods of quantifying damages and treatment of particular heads of damage can vary considerably between legal systems.
Jurisdiction and Applicable Law Are Different Questions
The fact that proceedings can be commenced before a Turkish court does not mean that Turkish substantive law automatically governs every aspect of the claim.
Where MC99 applies, its uniform substantive rules apply directly. National law then becomes relevant to issues that the Convention does not exhaustively regulate, such as particular questions concerning beneficiaries, the internal allocation of rights and certain methods of quantifying damage.
The Turkish private international law system also recognises the priority of applicable international conventions. Legal analysis of Turkish conflict-of-laws rules similarly emphasises that where an international treaty governs a matter, national conflict rules operate only in relation to matters left outside that uniform regime.
Where residual non-contractual questions must be determined by a Turkish court, the conflict rules of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure may become relevant; Article 34, for example, contains the Turkish conflict rule applicable to tort obligations.
A properly structured aviation claim should therefore distinguish between the substantive rules supplied directly by MC99, the domestic law applicable to residual questions and the procedural law of the forum.
The Two-Year Period Is Critical
The Montreal Convention contains an exceptionally important two-year time bar.
The Turkish Directorate General of Civil Aviation likewise states that rights of action under the Convention expire if proceedings are not commenced within two years calculated from the date of arrival at destination, the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or the date on which the carriage stopped.
Claimants should therefore be extremely cautious about relying on continuing negotiations with an airline or insurer. The two-year period should not simply be treated as an ordinary domestic limitation period that can safely be assumed to stop or restart because settlement discussions are ongoing.
In major international aircraft accidents involving foreign airlines, insurers, multiple claimants and several potential jurisdictions, identifying the appropriate forum itself may take substantial time. Limitation analysis should consequently begin immediately.
Potential Liability of Parties Other Than the Airline
MC99 primarily regulates the liability relationship arising out of carriage between passengers and air carriers. The technical cause of an aviation accident may, however, create separate causes of action against additional parties.
An aircraft or engine manufacturer may face product liability where a design or manufacturing defect caused the accident. An MRO provider may face liability for negligent maintenance or incorrect installation. An airport operator may be implicated where defective runway or airport infrastructure contributed to the event. Air navigation service providers may face separate claims where air traffic management errors played a causal role.
Those claims are not necessarily governed by the same legal regime as the Montreal claim against the carrier. Major aviation litigation therefore frequently requires analysis of air carrier liability, product liability, maintenance liability, airport liability and air navigation liability as separate legal issues.
This becomes particularly significant where the carrier seeks to rely on the second-tier defence by arguing that the loss was caused solely by a third party.
Evidence and Litigation Strategy
The ultimate value of an aviation compensation claim depends not only on the severity of the accident but also on the quality of the evidence supporting liability and quantum.
Accident investigation material, flight data, cockpit records, maintenance documentation, technical directives, air traffic control records, medical evidence, employment records, tax documents, actuarial reports and evidence of dependency may all become essential.
In catastrophic injury cases, premature settlement should be approached with particular caution because permanent disability, future operations, lifetime care requirements and long-term earning loss may not be fully identifiable immediately following the accident.
In fatal accident litigation, each claimant’s loss should also be assessed individually. The economic loss suffered by a surviving spouse will not necessarily be identical to the losses suffered by minor children or other dependants.
Conclusion
The Montreal Convention provides one of the most significant international compensation regimes protecting air passengers. Under the current rules, 151,880 SDR is not the maximum compensation payable for passenger death or injury. It is the threshold separating the Convention’s two liability tiers. The revised threshold has applied since 28 December 2024.
Where damages exceed that amount, the carrier may remain liable for the entire proved loss unless it succeeds in establishing one of the defences available under Article 21.
Where Turkish law governs relevant residual questions, fatal accident claims may include funeral expenses and loss-of-support compensation, while personal injury claims may include treatment costs, earnings losses, loss of earning capacity and impairment of economic prospects.
The correct approach to an aircraft accident claim is therefore to determine, in sequence, whether MC99 applies, which jurisdictions are available, which liability tier governs the claim, what domestic law applies to matters left open by the Convention, and finally the actual individual loss suffered by each passenger or dependant.
No Responses