Nur-Hussein Dimapanat

Warsaw convention is one of the earliest conventions in the aviation history; it was originally signed in
1929.

Later amendments were added to the convention which is a main disadvantage in the Warsaw system
that lead eventually to be replaced by a unified legal instrument in Montréal convention, originally
signed in 1999 which became into force in 2003.

Although Warsaw & Montréal conventions‘ main purpose is to unify certain rules relating to
international carriage by air & to determine the liability of the carrier in the case of an accident
regarding passengers, cargo & luggage.

However, there are differences between the conventions mainly relating to

-the extent of liability of the carrier,
-defining the terms which were undefined in Warsaw convention &
-unifying the rules relating to international carriage by air in a single legal instrument instead of the non-
unified Warsaw legal system instruments & amendments.
Nevertheless, both conventions convict the carrier & make him liable for damages sustained in case of
-death &injury of the passengers,
-damage of the cargo,
-damages occurred due to delay for the passengers or baggage or goods by air.

Both conventions extended the scope of liability of the carrier, in order to grant protection to the
passenger & his cargo.
However, there is a difference between the two conventions as the Montréal convention is stricter
concerning the case of death & injury of passengers

The differences between the two conventions concerning the exoneration of the carrier liability could
be illustrated by differentiating between the art.17 of both
Warsaw
Art. 17 of the Warsaw Convention states that the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of
death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident
which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the
operations of embarking or disembarking.
However, the carrier may be exonerated from liability in two cases:
1) If the carrier proves that it has taken all necessary measures or that it was impossible to take such
measures (article 20);
2) In the case of contributory negligence (article 21).
Montréal
Art.17 has the same wording
However the carrier could be exonerated from liability if the carrier proves that
1) The damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its
servants or agents, or
2) The damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission by a third party, or
3) The damage was contributed to or caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of that
passenger.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/philippines-ratifies-montreal-convention-1999-james-jordan/
https://www.philstar.com/business/2015/08/14/1488122/empowering-airline-passengers
http://www.iata.org/policy/Documents/MC99_en.pdf