Pioneering for Rights of the Differently Abled: Scope under the Montreal Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ruling of Stott v. Thomas Cook heralded the ‘exclusivity principle’ of the Montreal Convention for future claims for damages. However, the case simultaneously raised concerns regarding the rights of differently abled air passengers. Mr Stott, partially paralysed, was denied all his requests for assistance. This resulted in a series of traumatic events following which, Mr Stott suffered severe emotional harm. When Mr Stott claimed damages under the concerned EC Regulations, it was held that the Convention would be applicable exclusive to all other laws. This article examines a new line of reasoning in arguments for differently abled passengers, in light of the circumstances of Stott. The article identifies relevant international and national legislations on rights of differently abled passengers to substantiate a claim under the Convention, from a fresh perspective, without overturning the exclusivity principle. The authors argue that failure of an airline to abide by prevailing national and international laws on disability rights amounts to an ‘unexpected event’ and breach of duty of care, thereby falling within the purview of an ‘accident’ under the Convention. Applying abundant case law on the interpretation of Article 17, the authors aim to craft a successful claim for damages for differently abled air passengers, under selected circumstances unexplored by courts, within the confines of the 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".