Aviation Product Liability: Could Air Carriers Face their Life and Limb being Placed in Peril for the Exclusivity of the Montreal Convention?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past five decades, product liability law in the US and EU has evolved into a sustainable system of recoveries for injured claimants, mainly for its incorporated strict liability concept, providing for the consumer benefits. This article discusses product liability regimes in the US and EU, where the two main aircraft manufacturers are based. In light of the development of product liability law in aviation, the author analyses the relation between the two sets of law i.e. the product liability regimes of the jurisdictions mentioned and the Montreal Convention, as the exclusivity principle laid down in this Convention sheds a different light on this relationship. In examining the above subject, one can see that aviation product liability regimes may also concern the position of air carriers under the Montreal Convention, 1999. Damages which are recoverable from airlines under the Montreal Convention may be different from, and may be legally differentiated from those which are available under product liability regimes. Hence, this article signals a tendency in EU States, including but not limited to civil law jurisdictions, pursuant to which claimants try to rely on the latter regime notwithstanding the exclusivity principle laid down in the Montreal Convention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".