The magistrate’s court judge recently ordered one of the major airlines to compensate each of 18 plaintiffs in the amount of approximately NIS 3,500 (NIS 63,000) of which NIS 1,500 is compensation for example, for canceling a flight that the airline claims was canceled due to weather conditions The judge determined that the airline did not meet the burden of proving that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation of the flight.
According to the lawsuit, there are 18 passengers who were issued flight tickets, and their flight was cancelled. They submitted a financial claim, for the amount of NIS 90,000 that arose under the provisions of the Aviation Services Law. The airline claimed that it had the protection stipulated in Section 6(e)(1) of the law, since the cancellation of the flight was due, according to it, to extreme and unusual weather conditions, which, due to low visibility conditions, did not allow its planes to take off and land at the airport in Krakow.
In the end, the judge partially accepted the lawsuit and stated in the ruling, among other things, that in order for the court to exempt the airline from paying the compensation stipulated by law, it must be convinced that “special circumstances” occurred that were beyond the airline’s control and even if it had done Whatever she could, she could not have prevented the cancellation of the flight due to those circumstances. In the meantime, and with reference to the proper interpretation that should be given to the exemption from compensation, stipulated in section 6(e)(1) of the law, the judge determined that not every extreme weather constitutes “special circumstances”, which grants an exemption from compensation to the passenger.
As the verdict shows, the claim of the airline’s testimony, that it was “abnormal and extreme” weather, was falsely asserted, and in fact no evidence was presented on behalf of the airline to prove this claim. In any case, the defendant did not meet the burden of proving that she took all reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation of the flight. In this aspect, the court ruled, the test is objective, according to which it is necessary to examine what measures it is reasonable to require an airline to take in order to meet the conditions of the section of the law.
“From what has been said, it appears that the defendant did not act at all to try to find an alternative. We will return and recall that the defendant chose, for reasons reserved to her, not to testify about any of the decision makers, including the shift manager that day, and therefore in fact it was not clarified until the end of the procedure for the decision to cancel the flight. The efforts invested (to the extent that they were invested) in preventing the cancellation of the flight, questions are asked to which no answer was given by the defendant, wrote the judge and added: “The defendant was unable to prove the existence of circumstances that establish a defense for her under Section 6(e)(1) of the Aviation Services Law, and hence the plaintiffs are entitled to the payment of the statutory compensation stipulated in the law”.
In contrast to the burden of proving the existence of the exemption condition, which is placed on the shoulders of the defendant, the burden of proving entitlement to compensation, for example, is placed on the plaintiffs. The judge accepted the request to impose compensation on the airline as an example, stating in this regard in the ruling: “EFacts relevant to the award of damages, for example, is the defendant’s refusal to compensate the plaintiffs with statutory compensation following their appeal to her near the incident. In this failure, the defendant forced the plaintiffs to conduct legal proceedings, to cancel their time and be required to pay financial expenses. Hence, the defendants’ petition to charge the defendant also with payment of compensation, for example, is valid“.
Attorney Nir Samogora, who specializes in consumer law, commented on the ruling and noted: “This is an important ruling that anchors the right to receive statutory compensation for a canceled flight. It states that the burden of proving the exception for non-compensation rests with the airline, and beyond that, it specifically states that Not every unusual weather constitutes “special circumstances”, entitling the airline to an exemption from providing compensation. So if you plan to fly soon, you should know your rights…!”.
The article is courtesy of the legal portal obiter.co.il
To visit the website of advocate Nir Samogora, click here
To contact attorney Nir Samogora, send WhatsApp