Montreal Convention liability for air cargo: strict rules, tight windows

Liability that does not ask about fault

For cargo the treaty adopts a strict standard: the carrier is answerable for destruction, loss of or damage to cargo on the sole condition that the event which caused it took place during the carriage by air. A claimant does not have to demonstrate negligence, only that the goods were in the carrier's charge and that the loss occurred there. Delay is treated separately, with the carrier able to escape by showing it took all measures that could reasonably be required, or that it was impossible to take them. Carriage by air is defined to include the period during which the cargo is in the carrier's charge, and where carriage by another mode takes place outside an airport for the purposes of loading, delivery or transhipment, any damage is presumed to have occurred during the air carriage unless proved otherwise.

The four escapes, and how narrow they are

The carrier is relieved to the extent it proves the destruction, loss or damage resulted from one or more of a short list: inherent defect, quality or vice of the cargo; defective packing performed by someone other than the carrier or its people; an act of war or armed conflict; or an act of public authority carried out in connection with the entry, exit or transit of the cargo. Contributory negligence of the claimant can reduce liability separately. Compared with the sea regime's long catalogue of excepted perils, this is a very thin defence set. There is no navigational fault exception and no general escape for events beyond the carrier's control affecting the goods themselves. In practice, most contested air cargo claims turn on packing or on inherent vice.

Capped compensation and the special declaration

Compensation for cargo is limited by reference to the weight of the package or packages concerned, expressed in an international unit of account and reviewed periodically under the treaty's own revision mechanism. Unlike the passenger provisions and unlike most other cargo regimes, the cargo limit is effectively unbreakable: reckless conduct does not lift it. The bargain is that the limit is low but certain. The planned route to a higher ceiling is a special declaration of interest in delivery, made by the consignor at the time the package is handed over and accompanied by a supplementary sum where required. Where that declaration is made and accepted, the carrier is answerable up to the declared figure unless it proves the sum is greater than the consignor's actual interest. Anyone shipping goods worth substantially more than their weight suggests should be using this deliberately or insuring the goods instead.

The air waybill and the complaint that has to be in writing

The air waybill, or an equivalent record where electronic means are used, evidences the conclusion of the contract, acceptance of the cargo and the conditions of carriage. Its particulars matter for claims: statements about weight, dimensions, packing and the number of packages are evidence against the carrier, while statements about quantity, volume and condition are evidence against it only where checked in the presence of the consignor and noted on the document. Receipt of the cargo by the person entitled to delivery, without complaint, is prima facie evidence that it was delivered in good condition. Complaints must be made in writing within the short periods the treaty prescribes for damage and for delay, and no action lies at all if none is made in time, save for fraud by the carrier. A separate outer period governs bringing suit. In air cargo, missing the written complaint window is the single most common way a good claim is lost.

Reading this against a real waybill

This material is educational. Air cargo claims are resolved on the waybill contract, the enacting law of the state whose courts hear the case, the treaty version in force between the states concerned, and proof of what happened. Older air conventions still govern some routes, with different limits and different defences, so confirm which regime attaches before assuming.

Frequently asked questions

Can the air cargo limit be broken by proving reckless conduct?

For cargo the modern treaty makes the limit effectively unbreakable, which is a deliberate difference from the passenger provisions and from other transport regimes. Raising the ceiling requires a special declaration of interest at handover, or separate insurance on the goods.

Does signing for a shipment without checking it end my claim?

It does not end the claim, but receipt without complaint is treated as evidence that the cargo arrived in good condition, and a written complaint within the treaty's short deadline becomes essential. Where nothing is complained of in time, no action lies against the carrier absent fraud.

Does the treaty cover the truck leg to and from the airport?

Road movement performed outside an airport for loading, delivery or transhipment falls within a presumption that any damage occurred during the air carriage, unless the contrary is proved. Substituting surface carriage for an agreed air leg has its own consequences under the treaty.