Olena Bokareva

År: 2016 // Anslagsförvaltare: Lunds universitet // Område: Rättsvetenskap // Belopp: 1 313 081 kr

Min forskning

Projektet handlar om resenärers skadeståndsanspråk som uppkommit på grund av olyckor ombord på fartyg, som varit aktuellt sedan förlisningen av Titanic 1912. Vilket utfall resenärernas skadeståndsanspråk får beror på de lagar som gäller i det land där målet prövas. I korthet kan sägas att vissa resenärer kan få ersättning för förseningar, medan andra inte får någon ersättning över huvud taget ens vid dödsfall av en familjemedlem eller för ett psykologiskt trauma, även om de rest vid samma tillfälle med samma fartyg. 

Projektets huvudsakliga syfte är att undersöka ansvar vad gäller internationella passagerarfartyg. Fokus kommer att ligga på resenärer på kryssningsfartyg eftersom deras skadeståndsanspråk kan vara både sjö- och landrelaterade. Systemet för transport av fartygsresenärer kommer att jämföras med det ansvar och den ersättningsskyldighet som gäller för flygresenärer. 

En stor skillnaden mellan luft- och havstransporter är att flygresenärer är skyldiga att sitta ner och spänna fast sina säkerhetsbälten vid start och landning. Havsresenärer är mer utsatta för risker och skador som inte har att göra med själva transporten. Huruvida transportören bör vara ansvarig för skador eller dödsfall som är landrelaterade och inte uppstått under själva transporten är således föremål för diskussion.

Research

Passengers’ claims arising due to accidents on ships have been brought since the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. Unlike carriage of cargo, transportation of passengers presents totally different risks and liabilities for the carrier. With the advancement of the cruise passenger market , thousands of passengers are spending their vacations on a luxury cruise ship and offered high-cost entertainment and facilities of a holiday resort with the major difference that the ship while at sea is exposed to all kinds of dangers pertinent to any ship, such as storms, winds, piracy, fire, collisions, groundings etc, to say least about major casualty. In 2012, one hundred years after the Titanic, the Costa Concordia grounded in calm waters near the Giglio Island and became the largest passenger ship in history to be in distress. With the death toll of thirty two people, a huge number of passengers were injured during salvage operations and almost all of them suffered psychological damage. As a general principle of contract law, an injured party has to be compensated for its losses. However, international transport conventions entitle the carrier to limit its liability for certain losses or even exclude its liability. 
The outcome of any claim related to passengers depends on the applicable law and the forum state. The applicable law that will govern a dispute will be indicated in the ticket incorporating standard terms and conditions. It is vital for every passenger to know its rights before planning a voyage, but as practice shows, very few passengers do read the terms and conditions. Only in the case of an accident, it becomes evident whether and to what extent the passenger or his relatives can be compensated. Whether the forum state is a party to any international convention related to passengers could be of paramount importance. To simplify the problem, passengers traveling on the same ship, depending on the forum state and applicable law, can receive compensation for mere delay or disappointment with the cruise, while others may be left without any compensation for the death of the relative or for a strong psychological trauma. It is important to make a distinction between domestic and international sea transportation. Passengers transported between the ports in two different countries can bring their claims for accidents at sea under the Athens Convention relating to Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea , the EU Regulations or applicable national law which may or may not incorporate any of the international conventions. What aggravates the situation is that not all states are parties to a particular convention that establishes international minimum standards of the carrier's obligations and liabilities. In those states national law will apply to a passenger's claim and can lead to unpredictable outcomes and sometimes provides no compensation at all. 

Notably, the Athens Convention relating to Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 and the Protocol 2002 are now consolidated into the Athens Convention 2002. Both the Convention and the Protocol deal with civil liability of carriers, limitation of liability and compensation to passengers for losses incurred during the voyage, such as losses resulting from loss of life or personal injury or loss of, or damage to, their property/luggage. In brief, the Convention is a fault-based liability regime, in contrast to the Protocol which provides for strict and fault-based liability, two tiers of limitation amounts and compulsory insurance. The Convention makes an important distinction between a shipping and non-shipping incident that would entail different levels of liability and compensation. 
Passengers travelling by air can make a compensation claim under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention) adopted in 1929 and amended several times by Protocols , and later by the Montreal Convention, 1999. The Montreal Convention establishes the liability regime for personal injury and death to a passenger, damage to cargo and delay in relation to passengers and cargo. Article 29 establishes exclusivity of the cause of action which entails that where the carrier is clearly liable under the Convention, claims based on other causes of action are pre-empted, such as any non-material damage regarding the carriage of passengers and their baggage. One of the major differences between the two conventions is the terminology used with respect to injuries suffered. For example, the notion of "personal injury" envisaged in the Athens Convention 2002 is somewhat broader than the “bodily injury” under the Montreal Convention 1999 which excludes any compensation for non-material damage. It can be presumed that the notion of “personal injury” under the Athens Convention 2002 can be interpreted in various ways by the national courts in the states that ratify the convention, and thus undermine a desired uniformity.