Aviation accidents don't always cause physical injuries. Passengers who survive crashes, witness horrific events, or endure terrifying near-misses may suffer severe psychological trauma without a scratch on their bodies. Whether you can recover compensation for purely psychological injuries depends significantly on where your flight was headed—international and domestic flights follow different legal rules that dramatically affect the viability of mental injury claims.

The distinction matters because psychological injuries can be just as debilitating as physical ones. Post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and phobias can prevent victims from working, destroy relationships, and diminish quality of life for years or decades. Legal systems have struggled to accommodate these invisible injuries, and the rules that emerged differ between international aviation governed by the Montreal Convention and domestic flights subject to traditional tort law.

International Flights: The Bodily Injury Requirement

The Montreal Convention makes airlines strictly liable for damages caused by accidents resulting in "death or bodily injury" to passengers. Courts have grappled with whether purely psychological injuries—trauma without accompanying physical harm—qualify as "bodily injury" under this language. The prevailing interpretation, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Eastern Airlines v. Floyd under the Warsaw Convention and continued under Montreal, holds that standalone psychological injuries are not compensable.

This interpretation means that passengers on international flights who suffer only psychological harm cannot recover under the Montreal Convention, regardless of how severe their mental injuries may be. A passenger who witnesses a crash that kills the person seated next to them, develops crippling PTSD, and becomes unable to fly or work may have no claim against the airline if they escaped physical injury. The Convention simply does not cover their damages.

The rationale offered for this limitation involves concerns about fraudulent claims and the difficulty of proving purely psychological harm. Physical injuries are objectively verifiable through medical examination, while psychological claims were seen as more susceptible to fabrication or exaggeration. Whether these concerns justify excluding genuine psychological trauma victims from recovery remains debated, but the legal rule is settled for now.

The Physical Manifestation Exception

Courts have recognized that psychological injuries accompanied by physical symptoms may satisfy the bodily injury requirement. When mental trauma causes physical manifestations—insomnia severe enough to cause measurable physiological effects, stress-induced cardiac problems, ulcers, or other physical conditions—some courts have found the bodily injury threshold met. The psychological injury itself isn't compensable, but its physical effects may create a compensable claim.

This physical manifestation approach requires careful medical documentation. Simply claiming to feel stressed isn't sufficient. Victims must demonstrate through medical evidence that their psychological trauma caused objectively verifiable physical harm. The physical symptoms must be genuine medical conditions, not merely subjective complaints about physical discomfort.

The line between compensable physical manifestation and non-compensable pure psychological injury can be blurry. Courts have reached different conclusions about what physical effects are sufficient. Having documented medical evidence of physical symptoms caused by psychological trauma at least creates an argument for recovery, even if success isn't guaranteed.

Domestic Flights: More Flexible Standards

Domestic aviation accidents are governed by state tort law rather than the Montreal Convention. Most states recognize claims for emotional distress and psychological injury, though the specific requirements vary. Generally, domestic claims for psychological harm face fewer categorical barriers than international claims under the Convention.

Many states allow recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress when plaintiffs can demonstrate genuine psychological harm caused by defendant's negligence. Some require physical impact, physical manifestation, or presence in a zone of danger as threshold requirements, but these tests are generally more permissive than the Montreal Convention's bodily injury rule. Passengers who suffer psychological trauma on domestic flights often have viable claims unavailable to international passengers with identical injuries.

The zone of danger test illustrates the difference. A passenger who wasn't physically injured but was present during a terrifying emergency—an engine explosion, rapid decompression, or near-collision—may recover for psychological trauma under domestic law if they were in the zone of danger of physical harm. The same passenger on an international flight would likely have no Convention claim because they suffered no bodily injury.

Physical Injury Plus Psychological Damages

When passengers suffer both physical injuries and psychological trauma, the situation changes considerably. Under both international and domestic law, psychological damages flowing from physical injuries are generally compensable. The physical injury provides the anchor, and all resulting damages—including emotional suffering—are recoverable.

For international flights, this means that passengers with even minor physical injuries can recover for accompanying psychological harm. A passenger who suffers cuts and bruises in a crash can include their PTSD in the damage claim because the psychological injury flows from the compensable physical injury. The physical injury opens the door that pure psychological claims cannot enter.

This rule creates strategic considerations in how claims are framed and documented. Passengers who suffered any physical effects from an aviation incident should ensure those physical injuries are thoroughly documented, as they may provide the basis for recovering psychological damages that would otherwise be unavailable. Even seemingly minor physical impacts warrant medical evaluation and documentation.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress present different considerations than negligence-based claims. When airline conduct is truly outrageous—extreme and intolerable behavior that goes beyond mere negligence—intentional infliction claims may be available. These claims focus on the defendant's conduct rather than requiring physical injury to the plaintiff.

However, the Montreal Convention may preempt intentional infliction claims on international flights to the extent they arise from accidents during air carriage. Courts have generally held that the Convention provides the exclusive remedy for accident-related claims, blocking alternative theories that might otherwise be available. The Convention's exclusivity can cut off claims that domestic law would allow.

For domestic flights, intentional infliction claims remain available when the facts support them. Cases involving deliberate misconduct, extreme negligence, or outrageous airline behavior may support claims that pure negligence cannot. These situations are relatively rare in aviation, but when they occur, intentional infliction theories can provide recovery for psychological harm.

Proving Psychological Injury

Regardless of which legal framework applies, proving psychological injury requires thorough documentation. Victims should seek mental health treatment promptly after traumatic aviation incidents. Diagnosis by qualified mental health professionals establishes that genuine psychological injury occurred. Ongoing treatment records document the severity and persistence of symptoms.

Expert testimony often proves essential in psychological injury cases. Psychiatrists and psychologists can explain the nature of the injury, its cause, its effects on the patient's life, and its prognosis. They can address the connection between the aviation incident and the psychological harm, establishing causation that might otherwise be disputed. Expert support strengthens claims that defendants might otherwise dismiss as exaggerated.

Documentation of how psychological injuries affect daily life adds practical grounding to medical diagnoses. Inability to work, damaged relationships, disrupted sleep, avoidance behaviors, and diminished enjoyment of life all reflect the real-world impact of psychological trauma. This documentation helps translate clinical diagnoses into damages that courts and juries can understand and value.

Choosing Your Legal Strategy

Passengers who have suffered psychological trauma from aviation incidents should consult with attorneys experienced in aviation law to evaluate their options. The flight's route determines which legal framework applies, but strategic choices may still affect outcomes. Pursuing claims against non-carrier defendants like manufacturers may avoid Convention limitations. Documenting physical manifestations of psychological trauma may overcome bodily injury requirements.

Understanding the limitations is essential for realistic expectations. International passengers with purely psychological injuries face genuine legal barriers under current interpretation of the Montreal Convention. Domestic passengers generally have more options but must still meet state law requirements for emotional distress claims. Legal advice tailored to specific circumstances helps victims understand what recovery is realistically available.