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
Those who favoured increasing the liability limits pointed out that the cost of third party insurance, at least to commercial operators, was very small and would still have been small with much higher limits than those in the Mexico City draft. They believed that the limits should be substantially increased and could have been so increased without placing an unreasonable insurance burden on aircraft operators or an excessive strain on the insurance market. They pointed out that accidents causing third party damage greater than the limits in the Mexico City draft had occurred in the past; in the case of the two most serious third party accidents which had been brought to the Council’s attention, the Mexico City limits, if applicable, would have resulted in grossly inadequate compensation to the damaged third parties, amounting in one case to approximately one-.fth of their losses and in the other case to approximately one-eighth of their losses. They believed that it was only reasonable to assume that such accidents would occur again in the future. They pointed to the rapid growth of large industrial installations that might be destroyed by .re caused by an aircraft accident; to the possibility of an aircraft crashing into a large public audience or other large collection of people; and to the growing recognition of the value of human life as re.ected in increasing compensation awarded in cases of death or permanent injury. They felt that States would be mindful of the legitimate demands for the protection of the general public, and that they will not surrender the rights which the citizens of most States had to claim full compensation for losses caused by foreign aircraft, unless a very strong case could have been made that it would have been unfair to ask the operators of those aircraft to pay the necessary insurance premiums to cover full compensation. They believed that aviation had become an accepted medium of transport and that its further development depended less on special privileges, than on its ability to maintain the con.dence of the public. They held that it was not in the best interest of interna-tional civil aviation to accord to it privileges which could not be justi.ed by sound technical and economic analysis.
The Council found that, on the basis of data available to the Council, the limits proposed in the Mexico City draft were justi.ably low and should be increased for all aircraft, except those in the smallest weight class. The Council noted that the Legal Committee had recognized that the smaller types of aircraft could cause personal injury and death, as distinct from property damage, disproportionate to their weights. For this reason they recommended higher per kilogramme limits for the smaller aircraft, and recommended successively decreasing limits per kilo-gramme for the successively larger weights of aircraft. They proposed that the increase of liability with weight should commence at a lower weight limit (1,000 kg) and thus operate for all aircraft except those of the smallest weight class, i.e., generally the two-seater private aircraft. Recognizing that the burden of insurance costs was heavier for small privately owned aircraft in the smallest weight class, they proposed no increase in the limit of liability applicable to such aircraft.
The Council could see no justi.cation for .xing an absolute upper limit to the liability limits at 10 million francs, a limit which abruptly ceased to bear a .xed relation to the weight of aircraft. Aircraft were being constructed and others would be built during the period in which the Convention was effective which would considerably have exceeded in weight, and therefore in potential destructiveness, would have probably tended to diminish as the weight of aircraft increases beyond that of the largest types then in general use, and it was for this reason that they
C. The Rome Convention of 1952
recommended a lower rate of increase in the limit of liability per kilogramme for aircraft weighing in excess of 50,000 kg.
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(58)
