When an airplane crosses international borders, a different set of laws governs passenger rights and airline liability. The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes the legal framework for international air travel, creating rules that differ significantly from domestic aviation law. Understanding these rules is essential for crash victims and their families because the Convention provides certain advantages—including strict liability for injuries—while also imposing procedures that must be followed precisely to preserve your claim.
The Montreal Convention applies to all international flights between member countries, which includes virtually every major aviation nation. If your flight departed from one member country and was destined for another, or if it made a scheduled stop in a different country, the Convention likely governs your claim. This international framework supersedes domestic law for covered flights, meaning you cannot simply apply the legal rules you might expect from accidents occurring entirely within one country.
Strict Liability for Passenger Injuries
One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is its imposition of strict liability on airlines for passenger injuries and deaths up to a specific threshold. Currently, this threshold is approximately 128,821 Special Drawing Rights, which translates to roughly $170,000 to $180,000 depending on exchange rates. For damages up to this amount, the airline is automatically liable—you do not need to prove negligence or fault of any kind.
This strict liability provision represents a major advantage for injured passengers. In domestic aviation accidents, victims typically must prove that someone—the airline, pilot, manufacturer, or maintenance provider—acted negligently. That burden of proof can be difficult to meet, especially when evidence is destroyed in the crash. Under the Montreal Convention, the airline simply cannot contest liability for the first tier of damages. They must pay regardless of fault.
Above the strict liability threshold, different rules apply. Airlines can avoid liability for damages exceeding approximately $170,000 only if they prove the accident was not caused by their negligence or wrongful act, or that it was solely caused by the negligence of a third party. In practice, airlines rarely succeed with these defenses because aviation accidents almost always involve some failure attributable to the carrier. The practical effect is that full compensation remains available for serious injuries and deaths, though the burden of proof shifts once damages exceed the threshold.
No Caps on Total Recovery
A common misconception holds that the Montreal Convention caps damages at the strict liability threshold. This is incorrect. The Convention abolished the damage caps that existed under its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, which had limited recovery to approximately $75,000 regardless of actual damages. Under current law, there is no upper limit on compensation for international aviation accidents.
Victims of international crashes can recover full compensation for all their damages—medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, loss of companionship in death cases, and any other damages recognized under applicable law. The strict liability threshold affects only the burden of proof, not the maximum recovery. Families who have lost loved ones in international crashes regularly recover multi-million dollar settlements and verdicts.
This unlimited liability makes the Montreal Convention favorable for victims with substantial damages. Serious injuries requiring lifetime medical care, deaths of high-earning professionals, and other catastrophic losses can be fully compensated without artificial caps limiting recovery. The airline industry accepted unlimited liability in exchange for the procedural uniformity and predictability the Convention provides.
Time Limits and Filing Requirements
The Montreal Convention imposes strict procedural requirements that can bar claims if not followed precisely. The most important is the statute of limitations, which requires lawsuits to be filed within two years of the date of arrival at the destination, the date the aircraft should have arrived, or the date transportation stopped. Missing this deadline permanently extinguishes your claim.
For baggage claims and flight delays, even shorter notice periods apply. Damaged baggage claims must be submitted in writing within seven days of receipt. Delayed baggage claims require written notice within twenty-one days. These deadlines are strictly enforced, and late notice typically defeats the claim entirely.
The Convention also specifies where lawsuits may be filed. Generally, claims must be brought in the country where the carrier is domiciled, has its principal place of business, has an establishment through which the contract was made, or at the destination. For wrongful death claims, an additional option allows suit in the country where the passenger had permanent residence, provided the carrier operates flights to that country. Choosing the right jurisdiction affects which country's laws govern damages and can significantly impact recovery.
What Damages Are Recoverable
The Montreal Convention specifies that airlines are liable for damages resulting from accidents causing death or bodily injury, but it does not define what types of damages can be recovered. Instead, the law of the forum—the country where the lawsuit is filed—determines available damages. This creates strategic considerations in choosing where to sue.
In United States courts, victims can typically recover all recognized categories of damages including medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and in death cases, loss of support and companionship. Some other countries limit non-economic damages or calculate them differently. Filing in the United States generally provides access to the most comprehensive damage recovery available under the Convention.
Punitive damages present a more complex question. Some courts have held that punitive damages are not available under the Montreal Convention because the treaty language focuses on "compensatory" recovery. Others have permitted punitive claims in cases of egregious airline misconduct. This remains an evolving area of law, and availability of punitive damages may depend on which court hears the case.
When the Convention Applies—and When It Doesn't
Determining whether the Montreal Convention governs a particular accident requires careful analysis of the flight's route and ticketing. The Convention applies to international carriage—transportation where the place of departure and destination are in different member countries, or where there is an agreed stopping place in a country other than the departure and destination country, even if both of those are the same.
Purely domestic flights are not covered. A flight from New York to Los Angeles, even on an international carrier, would not be governed by the Convention. However, a flight from New York to Los Angeles that was booked as part of a through ticket continuing to Tokyo would be covered because the ultimate destination is in a different country. The contract of carriage, not the specific flight segment, determines Convention applicability.
Some countries are not parties to the Montreal Convention, though these are increasingly rare. When accidents involve non-member countries, the older Warsaw Convention or domestic law may apply instead. Your attorney must analyze the specific route and countries involved to determine the applicable legal framework.
Advantages and Disadvantages for Victims
The Montreal Convention provides significant advantages for victims of international aviation accidents. Strict liability up to approximately $170,000 eliminates the need to prove negligence for moderate damage claims. Unlimited total liability ensures catastrophic losses can be fully compensated. Uniform rules provide predictability and prevent airlines from using forum selection to minimize liability.
However, the Convention also presents challenges. The two-year statute of limitations is shorter than many domestic limitation periods. Jurisdictional rules may require filing suit in inconvenient or unfavorable forums. The exclusivity of the Convention means victims generally cannot pursue alternative legal theories that might be available under domestic law. Strict compliance with procedural requirements is essential to preserve claims.
Working with an attorney experienced in Montreal Convention litigation ensures your rights are protected. These cases involve complex jurisdictional analysis, international procedural requirements, and coordination with investigations that may span multiple countries. The Convention provides a framework for recovery, but navigating that framework successfully requires specialized expertise.
Taking Action After an International Aviation Accident
If you or a family member has been injured or killed in an international flight, several immediate steps protect your legal rights. Document everything—keep all tickets, boarding passes, and travel records. Obtain copies of any communications with the airline. Seek medical attention promptly and maintain thorough records of treatment.
Consult an aviation attorney as soon as possible. The two-year limitation period may seem lengthy, but international cases require extensive investigation, coordination with foreign authorities, and careful strategic planning. Starting early ensures adequate time to build the strongest possible case before filing deadlines arrive.
Understanding that the Montreal Convention governs your claim is the first step toward obtaining full compensation. The Convention's strict liability provisions and unlimited damages make it a favorable framework for victims, provided its procedural requirements are carefully followed. With proper legal guidance, international aviation accident victims can obtain the full compensation their losses deserve.