## Facts

- Two passenger-injury appeals were heard together because both required interpretation of “bodily injury” under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention 1929 as implemented in domestic law.
- In one case, a nearly 16-year-old unaccompanied airline passenger was indecently assaulted by a fellow passenger during an international flight; she later developed clinical depression but alleged no physical injury.
- She sued the air carrier under Article 17, contending the assault was an “accident” and that her resulting psychiatric illness constituted “bodily injury.”
- In the other case, a passenger on an offshore helicopter flight experienced a traumatic incident when both engines failed and the aircraft returned to the helideck amid smoke and panic; he initially suffered no physical harm.
- He later developed PTSD and also developed or experienced worsening of peptic ulcer disease, which he attributed to the trauma and resulting psychiatric condition.
- He sought damages under Article 17 for psychiatric injury and for the ulcer condition as a physical consequence of the trauma.
- Lower courts reached differing results on whether psychiatric injury alone, or physical conditions caused by psychiatric injury, fall within “bodily injury” under Article 17.

## Issues

1. Whether “bodily injury” in Article 17 includes purely psychiatric injury (e.g., PTSD or clinical depression) absent any accompanying physical injury.
2. Whether “bodily injury” in Article 17 includes a medically recognized physical condition that is caused or aggravated by psychiatric injury (i.e., a physical manifestation or consequence of mental trauma).
3. Whether the Convention supplies an exclusive cause of action for in-flight “accidents,” precluding alternative domestic law remedies when Article 17 does not provide compensation.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that purely psychiatric injury, without accompanying physical injury, is not “bodily injury” under Article 17.
- The House held that a genuine physical injury or illness caused or exacerbated by the traumatic event and associated psychiatric condition can qualify as “bodily injury,” if established on medical evidence.
- The House reaffirmed that the Convention operates as an exclusive code for liability arising from accidents in international carriage by air; if a loss is outside Article 17, no alternative domestic remedy is available for that accident.
- The appeal by the passenger alleging only psychiatric injury from the in-flight assault was dismissed because no qualifying “bodily injury” was proved.
- The carrier’s appeal in the helicopter case was allowed to the extent needed to restore the first-instance outcome recognizing that the passenger’s ulcer condition could constitute compensable “bodily injury,” while psychiatric injury alone was not independently recoverable.

## Legal Principles

- “Bodily injury” in Article 17 means injury to the body; it does not include emotional upset or psychiatric injury as such.
- The brain is part of the body; a condition may qualify if medical evidence shows an actual physical injury or pathology (including to the brain), rather than distress or a diagnosis unsupported by demonstrable bodily change.
- Physical illness or injury that is a manifestation or consequence of traumatic exposure and resulting psychiatric disorder may constitute “bodily injury,” provided it meets ordinary medical criteria of physical injury.
- The Convention must be interpreted to achieve uniform international meaning and should be applied in light of current medical and scientific knowledge when determining what constitutes a physical injury.
- The Convention provides the exclusive basis for claims within its scope; failure to satisfy Article 17 forecloses recovery for that accident under domestic tort law.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords construed Article 17 to bar recovery for pure psychiatric injury while permitting recovery where credible medical evidence shows a physical injury or illness (including one caused by psychiatric trauma), and it reaffirmed that the Convention is the exclusive liability regime for covered international air-carriage accidents.


Morris v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines; King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd., [2002] 2 A.C. 628 (H.L.)