Interpretation and application of the 1999 Montreal convention arising from air carrier liability in Ghanaian courts : the case of Dr RSD Tei and Evelyn Jumbo v Messrs Ceiba Intercontinental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judicial interpretation as a mechanism through which the judiciary construes the law must be exercised very cautiously by the courts because it is the sole institution to interpret and ensure a just and equitable outcome of the law. For this reason, the judiciary’s approach to the interpretation of legal texts must be based on the formulation of realistic wisdom after adopting an innovative and purposeful approach to the interpretation of such legal texts. The writer considers the ‘patchwork’ liability regime of the Warsaw system and its development through the Montreal Convention of 1999 in relation to air carrier liability when an accident is occasioned on board an aircraft. Further, the study highlights that the court must always remember to use a “current” valuation in assessing the quantum of compensation due to a plaintiff on the date of judgement. Finally, a proposal is made for the establishment of a treaty body to develop and provide an interpretative guide to the Montreal Convention in order to avoid absurd and unintended decisions which defeat the spirit and purpose of the 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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".