An injury sustained during turbulence can turn a trip into a very concrete problem: one wonders whether the airline must be held liable, whether it is necessary to prove crew fault, what documents are needed, and how much time remains to take action. The point is not merely establishing whether the flight was difficult or frightening. It is necessary to understand whether an event considered relevant by the law occurred and whether the injury truly stems from that event.

Turbulence does not automatically entitle a passenger to a fixed sum. I want to help you distinguish travel discomfort from compensable injury, understand what the Montreal Convention requires, and recognize the circumstances that make a claim more precise. We will also see why the medical certificate, the information gathered on board, and the deadline for filing an action serve different and non-substitutable functions.

The Montreal Convention is the Starting Point

For an injury caused during air carriage, Article 17 of the Montreal Convention is paramount. The rule links carrier liability to the death or injury of a passenger caused by an accident occurring on board, during embarkation, or disembarkation. Therefore, it does not only concern a technical problem of the aircraft: an event that occurred in the cabin may also be relevant if it caused the injury. The text of the Convention, including the articles on liability and time limits, is available in the Montreal Convention published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

On flights covered by EU rules, protection does not stop at international connections alone. Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 adapted Regulation No 2027/97 to the Convention and extended its relevant provisions to air transport within a single Member State as well. This extension is important, for example, when the injury occurs on a domestic route operated by an EU carrier. The reference is Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 on air carrier liability.

Compensation for an injury does not coincide with the compensation provided for delays or cancellations. Turbulence can cause an accident without flight delay; conversely, a delay can occur without any personal injury. For injuries, there is no automatic tariff linked to flight duration or the subjectively perceived intensity of the jolt. Instead, the claim must connect an event, an injury, and economically or personally appreciable consequences.

When Turbulence May Be a Relevant Accident

The name of the event is not enough: the concrete dynamics matter. Saying that the aircraft encountered severe turbulence describes the context, but does not yet prove why a person got hurt. A sudden movement that causes a loss of balance, an impact against a seat, an object falling from the overhead bin, or a fall may assume relevance. It is then necessary to link that fact to the injury, not merely to a feeling of fear or general malaise.

Proof of carrier fault is not the primary requirement of Article 17. The Court of Justice clarified, in a case involving a fall during disembarkation, that an accident can occur even if the carrier has not breached duties of diligence or safety. This does not eliminate the need to prove that the event occurred and that it produced the injury; however, it clarifies that a claim does not necessarily have to begin by ascertaining a pilot or crew error. The criterion is expressed in the Court of Justice judgment, Case C-589/20, Austrian Airlines.

A movement perceived as violent is not always an accident in the legal sense. The Court of Justice excluded this qualification for a landing carried out within operational limits and according to applicable procedures, even if the passenger perceived it as unexpected. The comparison is useful for turbulence as well: passenger perception is an element to listen to, but it does not replace the reconstruction of what happened. For the Court, one must look at the objective circumstances of the event. The principle emerges from judgment C-70/20, Altenrhein Luftfahrt.

Safety instructions can affect the amount of compensation. Article 20 of the Convention allows the carrier to invoke the conduct of the passenger who caused or contributed to the damage. However, it is not enough to state that the person was not seated or not wearing a seatbelt: the luminous sign, the warnings received, the time elapsed between the warning and the jolt, the reason why the passenger was standing, and the entire sequence of events become relevant.

Evidence Must Unite Event, Injury, and Consequences

A claim is more solid when it reconstructs a simple and verifiable chain. It is necessary to show which incident occurred, what injury resulted from it, and what consequences it produced. A fracture diagnosed after the flight is an important medical datum; it becomes more significant if the medical report, the report to the crew, or other elements make it possible to place it within the impact or fall that occurred on board.

The medical report documents the health condition, not always the entire dynamic. Emergency room visits, specialist consultations, examinations, and prescriptions serve to describe diagnoses, treatments, and prognoses. Boarding passes, booking confirmations, photographs of visible injuries, crew communications, contact details of any witnesses, and documents indicating when assistance was requested can also be useful to clarify the event.

A report made on board can prevent subsequent uncertainties. If physical conditions permit, notifying the crew makes it possible to request assistance and immediately bring to light the place, time, and manner of the episode. This does not replace medical evidence or decide liability on its own, but it makes it harder to confuse an injury that occurred during the trip with a problem that arose before or after the flight.

Consequences must be kept distinct from hypotheses not yet confirmed. Medical expenses already incurred, prescribed treatments, necessary transport for rehabilitation, and days of work actually lost are facts different from a prediction of future damages. If the injury involves persistent limitations, the claim must be based on a clinical picture that explains duration, therapies, and potential effects, without presenting consequences that are still uncertain as definitive.

What Damages May Be Claimed

The injury does not determine the same amount for all passengers. The extent of compensation depends on the proven damage and the causal link with the accident. Two people involved in the same jolt may have very different claims: one may have only a minor trauma resolved in a few days, while another may face treatments, physical therapy, or a limitation affecting work and daily activities.

Documented expenses are the most immediate point of the claim. Visits, examinations, medications, therapies, prescribed devices, and travel costs linked to treatments must appear in documents consistent with the medical pathway. Keeping receipts and prescriptions does not serve to multiply heads of damage; it serves to distinguish expenses caused by the injury from those that are extraneous or unprovable.

Loss of earnings requires a concrete link with the accident. An absence from work, a reduction in activity, or the temporary impossibility of performing certain tasks cannot be presumed from the diagnosis alone. It is necessary to explain during which period the injury prevented or limited activity and to produce documents proving the economic consequence. The classification of individual items and their quantification also depend on the law applicable to the case.

The Convention provides for a two-tier liability structure. Up to the threshold set by Article 21, subject to the update mechanism of Article 24, the carrier cannot exclude or limit liability using the defenses provided for the higher level, barring the potential impact of passenger conduct. Beyond that threshold, the carrier can escape further liability only by proving the circumstances indicated by the Convention. For this reason, it is unwise to use amounts in SDRs or euro conversions found in outdated articles in a claim.

Operating Carrier, Advance Payment, and Claim Recipient

The airline indicated on the ticket and the one operating the flight may be different. The Convention distinguishes the contractual carrier, meaning the party concluding the transport contract in its own name, from the actual carrier, meaning the party materially operating the flight with the former's authorization. Articles 39 and 40 subject both to the rules of the Convention within the limits of their respective roles. Boarding passes, flight codes, and booking confirmations help correctly identify these figures.

The presence of a code-share flight does not eliminate protection, but requires precision. If the ticket bears the name of one airline and the flight is operated by another, it is not useful to generically indicate "the airline". The claim must report the flight number, date, route, and corporate details resulting from the documents. This prevents the identity of the responsible party from becoming a purely formal obstacle to the reconstruction of the accident.

An advance payment is not automatically due for every injury. For EU carriers, the regulation provides for advance payments necessary to meet immediate economic needs, in proportion to the damage, within fifteen days of identifying the entitled person. The advance does not equate to a definitive recognition of liability and can be deducted from subsequent compensation. For an injury, both concrete economic urgency and documents showing the health condition and immediate expenses thus become important.

Personal policies and claims against the carrier remain distinct relationships. Travel, health, or accident insurance depends on the conditions of the insurance contract; claims against the carrier instead stem from the rules of air transport. The possible existence of insurance coverage neither proves nor excludes the company's liability on its own. Unjustified duplication of the same heads of damage must also be avoided.

The Two-Year Deadline Must Not Be Confused with a Simple Claim

The Convention establishes a two-year time limit to bring an action for damages. Article 35 makes the deadline run from arrival at destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the cessation of the carriage. This is a central rule: waiting for medical treatments to be fully finalized may be understandable medically, but it does not allow ignoring the running time limit for judicial protection.

A complaint to the airline does not coincide, in the text of the Convention, with bringing an action. Writing to the carrier serves to describe the episode, request documents, and start a dialogue, but Article 35 speaks of the action for damages. When the deadline approaches, it is unwise to consider an open file, an interlocutory response, or ongoing negotiations sufficient without clarifying the legal effects of the step taken.

The decisive date must be identified immediately. Keep travel documents and note actual arrival, scheduled arrival, and any circumstance that may affect the cessation of carriage. If the episode occurred during an itinerary with multiple segments, it is also necessary to distinguish the leg where the injury occurred from the journey considered as a single unit in the contract. This distinction can affect the reconstruction of the event and the deadline.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I claim compensation if the airline did not commit an error?

Yes, carrier fault is not always the initial requirement. However, you must prove that an injury stems from an accident occurring on board, during embarkation, or disembarkation. The carrier can assert the conduct of the passenger who caused or favored the damage and, beyond the threshold provided by Article 21, can raise the additional defenses established by the Convention.

Does turbulence alone prove my right to compensation?

No, the turbulence must be linked to a concrete injury. Useful elements include those describing the movement that occurred, the impact or fall, the injury, and the relationship between these facts. A medical report close to the event, a report to the crew, and treatment receipts do not guarantee a result on their own, but they make the reconstruction more controllable.

Is a medical certificate issued after the flight sufficient?

The certificate is important, but may not be enough on its own. It documents diagnoses, therapies, and prognoses; it does not always prove where and how the injury occurred. If the link with the flight is contested, the timeliness of the assessment, communications made on board, the boarding pass, and any element linking the injury to the reported dynamics gain relevance.

Can I turn to the airline that sold the ticket if the flight was operated by another?

Yes, the distinction does not mean ignoring the contractual carrier. The Convention regulates the relationship between the contractual carrier and the actual carrier when transport is performed by a party other than the one that concluded the contract. The ticket, booking confirmation, and boarding pass serve to identify both and formulate a claim without ambiguity.

Within what timeframe must I take action for injuries sustained on an aircraft?

The Convention provides two years to bring an action for damages. The time limit runs from arrival at destination, scheduled arrival, or cessation of carriage, pursuant to Article 35. Since extra-judicial claims do not in themselves coincide with filing an action, it is unwise to wait for an airline's response right up to the expiration deadline.

To Set Up a Claim Clearly

First gather the essential facts, then separate what is already proven from what requires further investigation. Travel documents, medical reports, prescriptions, receipts, and information about the episode help define the central point: whether an accident linked to the injury exists and which consequences can be supported with concrete data. If these elements are uncertain or the two-year deadline is approaching, you can contact me to clarify the steps to consider.