03-23-2015, 10:15 PM
Well, I watched the program and was quite disappointed. I felt that far too much time was given over to crash and how the injuries were incurred but not enough time was given to the Montreal convention and why and who decided that it should also apply to domestic passengers.
While watching the program the thought kept recurring that the Montreal convention applies to passengers but that the particular flight was categorised as "airwork" and therefore it could be argued that by definition Ms Casey was actually crew. Perhaps not Pel-Air crew but certainly of CareFlight and there was a contractual link between the 2 companies. Now, because she was being covered by workers compensation she could not sue for damages against her employer, CareFlight. However, and now it gets messy, there is an argument that she could still sue Pel-Air on the grounds that they failed in their duty of care towards a contracted staff member.
Creamie, where are you when your needed?
While watching the program the thought kept recurring that the Montreal convention applies to passengers but that the particular flight was categorised as "airwork" and therefore it could be argued that by definition Ms Casey was actually crew. Perhaps not Pel-Air crew but certainly of CareFlight and there was a contractual link between the 2 companies. Now, because she was being covered by workers compensation she could not sue for damages against her employer, CareFlight. However, and now it gets messy, there is an argument that she could still sue Pel-Air on the grounds that they failed in their duty of care towards a contracted staff member.
Creamie, where are you when your needed?