The Court of Appeal has allowed Dublin Airport Authority’s appeal and dismissed Teresa Bell’s claim over a fall on an air bridge at Dublin Airport in 2009. It found that the evidence did not establish negligence by the Authority and that the Montreal Convention restricted Bell to bringing her claim against the carrier, Aer Lingus.
Bell fell shortly after 2pm on 16 January 2009 while disembarking from a Rome-to-Dublin flight. She tripped on a raised joint, described in the judgment as a saddle, on the telescopic air bridge leading to the terminal. The joint was about two inches high and marked with a fluorescent yellow strip. Bell said she did not see it because other passengers were ahead of her.
At trial, the judge found the Authority negligent for not putting warning signs at eye level. The judge also accepted the argument that an EU regulation allowed Bell to sue a party other than the airline. The Authority appealed both conclusions. It also argued that Bell had been contributorily negligent, but the Court of Appeal said that issue did not require detailed consideration once it found no negligence by the Authority.
The appeal court said the evidence did not show that a small number of passengers on the roughly 100-foot bridge could have obscured the prominent yellow marking. Bell had already passed over an earlier saddle. Her engineer proposed that warning signs could help, but the court said evidence that a precaution might have prevented an accident was not enough to prove negligence. The engineer’s casual comparisons with air bridges at Gatwick and Dublin Airport’s newer Terminal 2 did not provide a technical basis for finding the Authority had breached its duty of care.
The court then considered whether the Montreal Convention permitted Bell to sue the airport. It said the Convention applied because she was injured while disembarking from an international flight, and that its rules governed the claim. The court rejected the interpretation of the EU regulation accepted at trial, concluding that it did not create an exception allowing Bell to sue the Authority directly. The ruling left open the possibility that Aer Lingus could seek contribution or indemnity from another party, including the Authority.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Authority’s appeal and dismissed Bell’s claim. The judgment did not determine any claim by Aer Lingus against the Authority.