Mental Injury Damages under the Montreal Convention 1999 as Developed by the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of the availability of mental injury damages under the Montreal Convention continues to be debated despite the efforts made in the negotiations and drafting to retain existing language to preserve judicial precedent relating to the Warsaw Convention, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation over issues already decided by the courts. In the United States (US), courts had achieved a consensus that pure mental injuries were not recoverable under the Warsaw Convention because such injuries cannot be considered a ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of Article 17, but recovery was allowed for mental injuries to the extent they were caused by or flowed from a bodily injury. Recent decisions in the US (and the European Union) have upset this consensus and uncertainty exists as to the availability and scope of such damages under the Montreal Convention. The courts in the US are once again divided as to the whether the mental injury must flow from a ‘bodily injury’ and the EU has taken this even further by eliminating the need for any ‘bodily injury’ for the recovery of mental injury damages. This article provides an overview of the law in the US related to the recovery of mental injury damages under the Warsaw Convention, the development of the law under the Montreal Convention and how some courts have reverted to the view rejected over thirty years ago that mental injury damages are allowed under the Article 17 even if unrelated to the bodily injury.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".