L’indemnisation possible des victimes de la catastrophe aérienne du vol Germanwings Lufthansa du 24 mars 2015 (Fr)

The air disaster in the Alpes de Haute Provence on March 24
2015 on the GERMANWINGS flight n ° 4U9525 Barcelona-Düsseldorf, made 150
victims of 18 different nationalities who were on board the Airbus plane
A320.

Among these nationalities, there were 70 Germans, 50 Spaniards, 3 British, 1
Belgian, 1 Danish, 1 Dutch, 3 Argentines, 2 Colombians, 2 Mexicans, 2
Venezuelans, 1 Chilean, 2 Americans, 2 Australians, 2 Japanese, 3 Kazakhs, 2
Iranians, 1 Israeli, 2 Moroccans.

Analysis of the black box of the cockpit sound recordings
reveals that the co-pilot was alone in the cabin whose door he locked
before disconnecting the autopilot to descend
the device in the mountains.

Due to the different treatment of compensation depending on the location,
circumstances and those responsible for the accident it is important that the public do
call on lawyers specialized in the defense of victims of disasters
because their experience is essential to the implementation of a
negotiation with those responsible for the accident and their insurers in order to obtain
the highest compensation for the families of the victims.

It is ultimately the insurance and reinsurance companies that provide the
airlines and aircraft manufacturers responsible for paying
compensation ordered by the courts.

In practice, these insurance companies seek an amicable arrangement
with the beneficiaries of the victims in consideration of the risk of conviction
to which their customers are exposed. This risk is generally determined by the
economic and moral prejudice suffered by the beneficiaries of the victims as well
only by moral prejudice suffered by the victims themselves likely
to have entered their heritage before their death.

The Montreal Convention of May 28, 1999 establishes objective liability
without fault capped at 113,100 SDR or 140,000 Euros. However, when it is
established that the accident is due to the fault of the air carrier there is no longer a ceiling
compensation.

In this case, the circumstances of the co-pilot's suicidal and criminal act are
established and constitute a fault of the airline, responsible for its
employees.

To this responsibility due to the piloting fault can be added the fault resulting from the lack of precaution concerning the respect of the requirement generally applied by the airline companies of presence at any time of 2 people in the cockpit and that resulting from the locking cabin access door trap.

When the accident occurs on an airline from a poor country, the
damages awarded against those responsible for the accident are often
limited to a small amount capped at € 140,000 from the Montreal Convention in
the absence of fault. Therefore, the insurer tends to take this amount
as the upper limit of his friendly proposal.

On the other hand, when the accident is likely to be judged by a court
American, the risk of conviction can vary between 1 Million and 4 Million US
$. This is why insurers will offer much more than € 140,000 as
amicable to protect themselves from this risk of high conviction.

This is also true when the airline and the insurer agree on
the need for fair and prompt compensation to victims,
because of the blatantness of his wrongs and the urgency to preserve his reputation.

We see the point of knowing the circumstances of the accident well to assess
the possible responsibilities of the various stakeholders and assess the strategy the
better suited to the interests of victims.

Generally it is in the USA that we get the most compensation
strong. This is explained by the efficiency of the American Common Law system in
regarding the establishment of evidence (the discovery system) and the fact that it
are jurors who decide on responsibilities and their compensation and that
these are much more generous than the professional judges of the courts of
civil right. American case law shows compensation on average
4 times the highest compensation in France.

But still it is necessary to seize a Court that it is competent according to the
rules of international and national jurisdiction. The Convention of
Montreal of May 28, 1999 provides that the Courts competent to know the
Air crash disputes are in principle the following:

1. The court of the domicile of the carrier (Germany),
2. The court of the principal seat of its exploitation (Germany),
3. The court of the place where he has an establishment by whose care the contract was concluded (to be checked in each of the countries in which the passengers bought their tickets)
4. The court of the place of destination (Germany)
5. The court of a State party where the passenger has his permanent and main residence at the time of the accident (in this case, the 18 countries of residence of the passengers)

In the present case, the jurisdiction rules mainly designate Germany since the airline is German and the travel destination is Germany. The Spanish courts also have jurisdiction over the place where the transport contract was concluded and the country of permanent and principal residence of the numerous Spanish victims. The courts of the 18 countries concerned will also have jurisdiction over victims who have their permanent residences there.

To these heads of jurisdiction is added the jurisdiction of the country of the head office of the manufacturer of the Airbus A320 aircraft in the event of an action based on the aircraft's manufacturing defects, an action which is not necessarily brought before the court designated by the Montreal Convention which applies to air carriers.

AIRBUS SAS under French law is part of the European EADS consortium
which has several head offices in Europe and includes various subsidiaries in France, in
Germany, Spain and England as well as 12 European manufacturing sites.
Consequently, a civil liability action against Airbus could be brought
before various European courts.

The American courts could also have jurisdiction on the one hand for
2 American victims and on the other hand, to know responsibility
possible from an American supplier of AIRBUS.

However, as the largest number of connecting points in this case
takes back to Germany, the competent American courts could refuse to
hear about this case in the name of the principle of "forum non conveniens" which
allows a court to declare itself incompetent for the benefit of another court in
name of a good administration of justice.

For the reasons mentioned above, the defense strategy of the
interests of the families of the victims while retaining the possibility of initiating proceedings
in various jurisdictions for as long as possible. The prescription of the action in
liability against the airline is 2 years.

Due to the multiple nationalities of the victims, the importance
considerable of this catastrophe on the reputation of the airlines
GERMANWINGS and Lufthansa, and on the reputation of Airbus, as well as
the influence exerted by American jurisprudence in matters of compensation,
we believe that the compensation that could be obtained will be very
higher than the amount of € 140,000 provided for by the Montreal Convention; according to
us, at least around 1,500,000 $.

We bet that the LUFTHANSA group will offer generous compensation in view of the extent of its responsibility for this tragedy quickly revealed by the investigation and analysis of the ship's recordings.