曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
on
the
Surface,
signed
at
Rome
on
29
May
1933.
Weishaupt
(1979, p. 223).
damage exists and that it is attributable to the aircraft.134
This included damage caused by an object of any kind falling from the aircraft, including in the event of the proper discharge of ballast or of jettison made in case of necessity and instances where damage was caused to any person on board the aircraft. Exceptions were made in the case of an act unconnected with the management of the aircraft which was committed intentionally by a person other than a crew member and where inability of the operator, his servants or agents to prevent such an act was evident. For purposes of the Convention, the aircraft was deemed to be ‘in .ight’ from the beginning of the operations of departure until the end of the operations of arrival.135
The operator, on whom liability devolved, was considered to be any person who had the aircraft at his disposal and who made use of the aircraft for his own account. The Convention, although not based on principles of fault liability, mitigated damages if the person injured was found to have contributed to the damage by his own negligence.
Article 12 of the Convention required every aircraft registered in the territory of a high contracting party to obtain insurance coverage relating to .ight over the territory of a high contracting party, determined upon liability limits set in Article 8 which made the operator liable for each occurrence up to an amount determined at the rate of 250 francs for each kilogramme of the weight of the aircraft136
to a limit not less than 600,000 francs, nor greater than 2,000,000 francs.
A mandatory requirement in the 1933 Convention for insurance coverage gave rise to the need to specify provisions regarding legalities. A Protocol was concluded in Brussels in September 1938137
which linked Article 12 of the 1933 Rome Convention to principles of insurance, giving the insurer the right to invoke a defence (in addition to the defence of contributing negligence) in the event the insurance coverage ceased to have effect; the damage occurred outside territorial limits prescribed in the contract in instances not resulting from force majeure, justi.able deviation of the aircraft; negligence in piloting; or if the damage was the direct consequences of international armed con.ict or civil disorder.
At the 23rd Meeting of the ICAO Legal Committee, held on 21 January 1950, where the Committee was considering a draft Convention to replace the 1933
134Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to Damage Caused by Aircraft to
Third Parties on the Surface, signed at Rome on 29 May 1933, Article 2. 135The meaning imputed to the words “beginning of the operations of departure until the end of the operations of arrival” is debatable. It is interesting that an earlier treaty, the Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention) signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 applies liability for accidents taking place on board the aircraft or any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. The word “on board” has been interpreted judicially in different circumstances. See Abeyratne (2001, pp. 197–198).
136The weight of the aircraft was the weight with total maximum load as indicated in the certi.cate
of airworthiness or any other of.cial document.
137Protocol Supplementing the Convention for the Uni.cation of Certain Rules Relating to
Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface (signed at Rome on 29 May 1933)
concluded at Brussels, on 30 September 1938. Article 2 of the Protocol provides that the Protocol
forms an integral part of the 1933 Convention.
B. Other Aspects of Responsibility
Convention, the Committee observed that the 1933 Convention not only applied to damage caused through contact but also to damage caused through .re or explosion or any person or things falling from the aircraft.138
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(49)
