A passenger fell on the passenger stairs immediately after disembarking from an Austrian Airlines aircraft and broke his forearm. Since the carrier was unreasonable, she went to court. The matter ended up before the ECJ, which ruled in favor of the injured.

According to the established case law of the European Court of Justice, airlines have to take responsibility for many circumstances that, at first glance, are not necessarily the responsibility of the airline. However, passengers do not have a contract with the airport or a ground service provider, but with the airline. As a rule, the "subcontractors" are regarded as vicarious agents of the airline, so that there is liability for any mistakes they may make.

The specific case is a bit unusual because the ECJ ruled in case C-589/20 that airlines have the obligation to prove whether the behavior of passengers contributed to the fall on the mobile boarding ladder or not. This proof can be very difficult to provide. According to the European Supreme Court, national courts must decide in individual cases.

The brief history of the legal case is as follows: After landing an Austrian Airlines flight in Vienna, a passenger disembarked and fell on the mobile apron stairs. There is said to have been no obvious reason for the accident. She broke her forearm. Austrian Airlines saw no reason for pain and suffering compensation and the assumption of the costs for a household help. The woman went to court and the case went through the courts.

The ECJ did not address Austrian Airlines' arguments

Furthermore, it is known from the court submissions that the traveler had her two-year-old son in her arms and her handbag in the other hand. She couldn't hold on to the handrails of the stairs. However: The ECJ is of the opinion that airlines must expect that passengers have young children who depend on the help of their parents with them. However, the fact that she was carrying her child and her purse may have contributed to the accident. However, the supreme judge rated the protection of the small child as considerably more important than using the handrails.

The father of the child is said to have been there as well and got off immediately before the woman. Austrian Airlines argued unsuccessfully in the proceedings that the passenger had seen that he had not used the handrails either and had almost fallen. Furthermore, the stairs would have been slippery due to light rain. The treads should also be perforated so that no water can accumulate. The stairs are said to have been free of defects.

Another circumstance: The woman should not have been treated immediately in a hospital, but with a time delay. The airline unsuccessfully argued that this might have made the injuries worse. However, the ECJ did not go into this, but pointed out that the passenger was given first aid on the spot by medical staff and it would be relevant which recommendations she received from them. Apparently, the doctor providing first aid was of the opinion that immediate admission to a hospital is not necessary, but that she can “arrive” first and then go to a doctor or a hospital independently.