The Montreal Convention and Recovery for Free-Standing Emotional Distress Under Article 17
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal Convention limits international airline passengers to recovery for torts resulting in bodily and prevents recovery for purely psychic trauma. This requirement has been imported from the body of jurisprudence developed around the Warsaw Convention, the earlier international treaty that the Montreal Convention was intended to replace. Such wholesale adoption of Warsaw Convention precedent, however, is difficult to justify given that the intent in adopting the Montreal Convention was not to limit airline liability as was the Warsaw Convention, but rather to empower travelers. Further, because the bodily requirement the Court found present in the Warsaw Convention was itself based on a suspect translation from the French lesion corporelle, the general refusal to award damages for emotional trauma unless accompanied by a physical injury is flawed in its inception. This refusal to honor the Montreal Convention's desire to award damages for mental injury is particularly troublesome considering that recent medical advances, particularly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) convincingly demonstrate that psychological conditions are quite often the direct result of a physical change to the brain or its functioning. This article argues that as courts begin to question the notion of physical versus emotional injuries in international air travel accidents, air carriers must be ready to confront a legal landscape without the traditional limitations on liability imposed by international treaty.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".