期刊文献+

航空器出租人对国际空难损害的赔偿责任

Aircraft Lessor Liability for International Air Crash Damage
下载PDF
导出
摘要 在租赁航空器运营期间发生国际空难损害情形下,空难索赔人或基于方便诉讼,或为获取更高惩罚性赔偿,或对航空承运人索赔无果等因素的考量,会转向对航空器出租人进行追索。1929年华沙公约和1999年蒙特利尔公约并未排除航空承运人之外的其他任何主体的赔偿责任,国际空难损害赔偿诉讼的五个管辖权,均为受害人追索运营航空器的出租人留下了空间和路径。1952年罗马公约对航空器所有人界定的模糊性,使湿租或干租航空器的出租人极有可能被“视为”或“推定为”航空经营人而遭致被索赔。但在航空诉讼实践中,追索对象的隐秘性、各国立法的差异性、相关国际公约排除责任的援用性等,使追索航空器出租人的空难赔偿责任存在诸多障碍,索赔之路并非易事。尽管如此,各国航空立法实践和司法判例为索赔人提供了可资利用的请求权基础:即过失委托责任、产品责任或替代责任。因此,航空器出租人应高度重视对空难赔偿的责任风险,应充分利用租赁协议约定的赔偿条款、责任保险条款、适航责任分配条款以及监控航空器运营条款等措施,进行有效防范。 In case of international air crash damage occurred during the operation of the leased aircraft,an injured claimant may seek liability of the aircraft lessor for air crash damages on the grounds of convenience in litigation or for higher punitive damages,or for fruitless claims against the air carrier.The 1929 Warsaw Convention and the 1999 Montreal Convention do not exclude the liability of any other subject except the air carrier and the five jurisdictions of the international air crash damages litigation,leaving space and path for the victim to claim the lessor operating the aircraft.The ambiguity of the definition of aircraft owner in the 1952 Rome Convention makes it highly likely that the lessor of wet or dry leased aircraft will be“deemed”or“presumed”to be an air operator and be subject to claims.In the practice of aviation litigation,there are many difficulties and obstacles in the recourse against aircraft lessor to assume the liability for damages caused by international air crash,such as the secrecy of the object of recourse,the differences in legislation of various countries,and the recourse to exclude liability under relevant international aviation convention.Although it is not easy to claim in the practice of aviation legislation and judicial precedents,the liability for air crash damages of aircraft lessor already existed,and the basis of the claimant’s right of recourse is often manifested as the negligent entrustment liability,product liability or vicarious liability.Therefore,the aircraft lessor must attach great importance to the risk of liability for air crash.Effective precautions can be taken by perfecting the liabi-lity clause of the lease agreement,the liability insurance clause,the airworthiness liability allocation clause,and by strengthening the monitoring of the operation of the leased aircraft.
作者 郝秀辉 HAO Xiuhui(Research Base of Air Law and Policy,Civil Aviation University of China,Tianjin 300300,China)
出处 《北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版)》 CSSCI 2021年第5期92-101,共10页 Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics:Social Sciences edition Edition
基金 中国民航大学省部级科研机构开放基金(HK2012ZD03)。
关键词 航空器出租人 国际空难 损害赔偿 请求权基础 航空器适航责任 aircraft lessor international air accident liability for damage basis of claims airworthiness of aircraft
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献29

  • 1叶乃峰.国际航空侵权责任研究[D].成都:西南政法大学,2007.
  • 2美国法学会.侵权法重述第三版:产品责任[M].肖永平,等译.北京:法律出版社,2006,08,172-185.
  • 3中国《民用航空法》第145条.
  • 4Hemme v. Airbus,S.A.S. ,2010 WL 1416468(N.D. Ill. ,2010).
  • 5Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S. ,631 F. 3d 1321 (C.A. 11 (Fla.),2011).
  • 6Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading Inc. ,828 N. E. 2d 726 (Ill. Dec. 416 2005 ).
  • 7Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 55 Cal. App. 3d 737 (Cal. App. 1976).
  • 8Scandinavian Airlines System v. United Aircraft Corp. ,601 F. 2d 425 (C. A. Cal. ,1979) .
  • 91982年“汉斯蒂法诉美国政府案”,1985年“布莱克莱斯诉美国政府案”.
  • 10Greene v. B.F. Goodrich Avionics Systems, Inc. ,409 F. 3d 784,C. A. 6 ( Ky. ) ,2005.

共引文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部