Associate and Master of Laws (LL.M.) at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
In its latest decision, the Federal Court of Justice has reiterated that passengers are responsible for their own schedules and must allow sufficient time for airport security checks. The decision may lead to more flexible case-by-case judgments and suggests that airports, airlines and the state are not solely responsible for losses incurred from delays at airport security, but that every passenger has their own obligations and responsibilities.
In a recently published decision, the Würzburg Regional Court held that if a carrier does not submit a single offer to the consignor for carriage by different means of transport for the entire route as requested, but rather makes separate offers for the inland and ocean-going routes, and these offers are accepted by the consignor, it is not a true multimodal contract, but rather an inland waterway contract and a separate ocean-going contract.
The Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf recently confirmed the underlying principle of Article 18(2)(d) of the Montreal Convention – namely, that air carriers cannot be held liable for damages which are entirely outside their sphere of risk and influence. However, this decision is also a useful reminder that an exclusion of liability clause is not a free pass for carriers.
The Koblenz Higher Regional Court recently confirmed that tour operators cannot be held liable by cruise passengers for gym injuries sustained during large swells. The decision re-emphasises the fact that ships shift constantly at sea and that all passengers should therefore take appropriate care while on board – particularly during large swells – as failure to do so may deny them the ability to claim damages if an accident occurs.
The Munich Higher Regional Court recently confirmed that 'delivery' under the Commercial Code essentially means the procurement of direct possession. While the physical seizure of transported goods by a consignee is unnecessary, the goods must be made available to the consignee in such a way that it can, without further obstacles, seize control of the goods. The court also clarified how to classify the unloading of valuable goods in front of an unattended warehouse without an agreement or instructions.
The owner of a German-flagged yacht was sued by another German-flagged yacht owner for compensation after the yachts collided in bad weather. The first-instance court dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimant did not sufficiently prove the defendant's negligence. The claimant appealed to the higher regional court, which clarified the ambit and scope of prima facie evidence for maritime law.
One of the main reasons that the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks entered into force was the lack of authority of the coastal states within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This regulatory gap has now been filled, but the consequence – particularly for Germany – is an intricate situation due to the different legal frameworks between the convention regulations applicable in the EEZ and the national regulations applicable in the German territorial sea.