Lentorahdinkuljettajan syrjäytymätön vastuunrajoitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the unbreakable limit of liability of an air freight carrier, an important departure from general contract law principles unique to air law. An unbreakable limit of liability is a monetary limitation of liability originating in an international convention, which cannot be broken even when the damage has been caused intentionally or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. The breakability of limitations of liability can be traced back to Roman law, and can be described as a significant principle common to the whole of Europe. The unbreakable limit is examined first in the context of general contract law, taking into account the criticism leveled at the intent/gross negligence sabre normally accepted for piercing limitations of liability. Secondly, the development of air transport law conventions, namely the Warsaw and Montreal conventions, is examined to discover why such a radical decision was reached precisely in this system. Since the conventions, in nearly unique fashion, cover both the transport of passengers and cargo, the reasons why it only entered into force internationally for cargo, and not also for damage caused to passengers as originally envisioned by its drafters, should be examined. The discussion and legal and practical argumentation leading to the adoption of the convention are covered in as much detail as possible. The reach of the unbreakable limit also deserves special attention. While, in theory, limited simply to transportation by air, the scope of the Montreal convention may possibly extend its reach into other forms of transport, nominally governed by other conventions and national legislation with differing limits and liability systems. Some of this supplementary or conflicting legislation is of European origin, which is why the role of the European Union vis-à-vis air and transport law is also examined. Past EU legislation and jurisprudence represent significant threats or opportunities, depending on one s viewpoint towards the unbreakability of the limit. Fundamentally, the unbreakable limit of liability is the result of a convoluted international political process, characterized by an almost complete focus on the carriage of passengers, with the cargo rules generally only following on as an afterthought. Specifically, it is not unreasonable to describe the limit as a convention-based rule for the division of the parties duty to insure the cargo, with the limit representing the maximum insurance coverage required by the air carrier, thus leaving it to the consignor to either procure additional insurance or contract a higher limit of liability from the carrier, if needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.017 |
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".