Air accident lawyer in Paris: establishing liability and obtaining compensation for victims and their families.

Yes, on most commercial flights. Under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable for the death or injury of a passenger provided that the accident took place on board or during embarkation or disembarkation. For an airline holding a European licence, Article L. 6421-3 of the French Transport Code makes this regime applicable, including on a domestic flight. The victim must therefore establish three things: an event occurring during that period, a bodily injury and the link between the two. The victim does not have to show any negligence on the part of the crew. The Paris judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) thus declared the airline fully liable after noting that the defendants put forward no ground of exoneration: “There are therefore grounds for declaring AIR FRANCE fully liable for the harmful consequences of the accident” (TJ Paris, 5th ch. 1st sect., 8 July 2025, No. 23/08270) (our translation). The case was then referred to the specialised chamber to assess the losses and rule on the claim of the social security body. Two reservations remain. The carrier may be exonerated in whole or in part if it proves the victim’s negligence, under Article 20. Beyond the threshold in Article 21, it escapes further compensation if it proves that the damage was not due to any negligence or fault on its part or on the part of its employees or agents, or that it resulted solely from the act of a third party.

Not in itself. The Montreal Convention regime requires an accident, that is, an event that occurred during carriage and caused the injury. The mere coincidence between the flight and the onset of a health problem is not enough. The Bobigny judicial court so held in a distressing case: a passenger had felt unwell shortly after take-off and died despite the crew’s care. Her relatives relied on an earlier diversion because of weather. The court held that “the existence of an event external to the victim, unforeseen and sudden, that caused the death has not been established” and dismissed all of the family’s claims (TJ Bobigny, ch. 21, 17 June 2026, No. 21/00526) (our translation). This unfavourable decision shows the weight of medical evidence: no autopsy had been carried out, and the exact cause of death remained unknown. Where a passenger falls ill on board, it is therefore necessary to look for a specific external fact, for example turbulence, a blow, a falling object, a service error or a failure to provide assistance, and then link it to the medical findings. The firm examines the flight reports, the crew’s statements and the certificates before determining whether an action can seriously be contemplated.

The Court of Justice of the European Union answered in the affirmative in its judgment of 19 December 2019 (CJEU, 19 December 2019, Case C-532/18). A child had been burned by coffee spilled from the tray table during the flight. The Court ruled that the notion of accident in Article 17 covers all situations occurring on board in which an object used to serve passengers has caused bodily injury. It adds that there is no need to examine whether the situation results from a risk inherent in air travel. This interpretation binds the courts of the Member States when they apply the Montreal Convention, which the Union has approved. In practice, a passenger burned by a drink, injured by a trolley or hit by an object that fell from an overhead locker mainly has to prove that the event occurred and that it is linked to the injury. The incident report drafted by the crew, photographs of the injury taken on the same day and the certificate from the first doctor consulted form the basis of the file. The airline remains able to invoke the victim’s negligence to reduce its liability, under Article 20. The firm therefore also checks the exact circumstances of the service and each person’s conduct.

The time limit is two years. Article 35 of the Montreal Convention requires the action to be brought, on pain of forfeiture, within two years running from arrival, from the scheduled date of arrival or from the stopping of the carriage. For carriers subject to domestic law, Article L. 6422-4 of the French Transport Code repeats the same rule. The method of calculation is governed by the law of the court seised: the Paris court of appeal inferred from this that the action “is governed by the French civil-law rules on the computation of the limitation period and on the grounds for its interruption” (CA Paris, pôle 4 ch. 11, 6 July 2023, No. 22/16279) (our translation). Bringing a claim before the court therefore interrupts this time limit, under Article 2241 of the French Civil Code. The time limit is not postponed because the causes of the accident remain unclear. According to the Court of Cassation, “ignorance of a fault attributable to the pilot does not amount to an impossibility to act” (Cass. 1re civ., 11 May 2022, No. 21-16.647) (our translation). In that case, which was unfavourable to the families, no civil-party petition had been filed and the action, brought more than two years after the accident, was held to be barred by the limitation period. The timetable must be kept from the first few weeks, without waiting for the BEA report.

It can interrupt it, and that interruption survives a dismissal (non-lieu). The mixed chamber of the Court of Cassation settled this point on 27 March 2026. The parents of a passenger who died on a flying-club flight had filed a complaint with civil-party petition; the judicial investigation had ended with a dismissal order, and they then brought an action against the pilot’s insurer. The court of appeal had held their action barred by the limitation period. The Court of Cassation quashed that decision, holding that “a dismissal order, which does not rule on the civil action, does not constitute a final rejection of the claim within the meaning of that provision” (Cass. ch. mixte, 27 March 2026, No. 23-23.953) (our translation). Article 2243 of the French Civil Code, under which an interruption is treated as never having occurred where the claim is finally rejected, therefore does not apply in that situation. The Paris court of appeal had already accepted the interrupting effect of a civil-party petition filed by a passenger’s children, rejecting the airline’s objection of inadmissibility (CA Paris, pôle 4 ch. 11, 6 July 2023, No. 22/16279). In both cases, the insurer or the airline did not dispute the interrupting effect itself. Two precautions therefore remain necessary. The civil-party petition must be proved, and the duration of its effect checked: in the case decided in Paris, it had been declared inadmissible because French criminal law did not apply to those victims, and a new two-year period had run from that order, which the airline accepted. And the interruption does not dispense with then bringing the case before the civil court within that new period.

No, as far as the action for liability against the air carrier and its employees is concerned. The criminal court may try the persons prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter or unintentional injury, but it cannot rule on the compensation owed by the carrier. For an unpaid pleasure flight, the criminal chamber held that “an action for compensation for such an air accident falls outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of the criminal courts” (Cass. crim., 10 September 2019, No. 18-83.858) (our translation). It confirmed that solution on 2 June 2026 with regard to associations of victims of mass accidents: the texts lay down “a general principle that the criminal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an action for liability directed against the air carrier and its employees” (Cass. crim., 2 June 2026, No. 24-86.504) (our translation). The judgment quashed the civil awards made in favour of those associations, even though their right to act as a civil party in the criminal trial was not disputed. This case law is unfavourable to a strategy based solely on the criminal trial. The civil party keeps a useful role: access to the file, requests for investigative steps, and the expression of its position during the hearings. But compensation from the airline is claimed before the civil court, within the two-year time limit, which means that both sets of proceedings have to be conducted in parallel.

Article 221-6 of the French Criminal Code punishes involuntary manslaughter caused by clumsiness, imprudence, inattention, negligence or failure to comply with a duty of care or safety. Where a natural person has not directly caused the damage, Article 121-3 of the same code requires that the person manifestly and deliberately violated a particular duty of care or safety imposed by law or regulation, or committed a serious fault that exposed others to a risk of particular gravity which the person could not have been unaware of. This requirement does not apply to the airline itself: under Article 121-2, a legal person is liable for offences committed on its behalf by its organs or representatives. The criminal chamber dismissed the appeals brought against the conviction of the manager of an airline and of a pilot-examiner after the accident of a transport aircraft on take-off (Cass. crim., 8 September 2020, No. 18-82.150). The trial courts had noted that the adaptation course required by the regulations had not been completed and held that “these acts of negligence objectively exposed customers to a risk of particular gravity which the defendant could not have been unaware of” (our translation). They had established the indirect link with the accident by cross-checking the conclusions of the BEA, of the French defence procurement agency (direction générale de l’armement), of the court-appointed expert assessment and of witness statements. For families, the criminal procedure makes it possible to learn the causes and the individual responsibilities. It is not the same as compensation, which falls to the civil court where it is claimed from the carrier. The firm can assist alongside civil parties while securing the parallel civil action.

No. A passenger carried without payment must in principle prove fault. Since 10 October 2021, Article L. 6421-4 of the French Transport Code subjects a carrier that is not an airline holding a European licence to the Montreal Convention. For carriage without payment, unless otherwise agreed, its liability is engaged only if the damage is caused by a fault attributable to it, up to the threshold in Article 21. Beyond that, inexcusable fault is required. Under the earlier wording, the Court of Cassation held that a pleasure flight offered by a private individual, with the same point of departure and arrival, constitutes air carriage and that “the liability of that private individual can be engaged only if the victim proves that he committed a fault” (Cass. 1re civ., 8 April 2021, No. 19-21.842) (our translation). It quashed the judgment that had held the pilot’s heir liable on the basis of liability for things in one’s custody, a solution unfavourable to victims. Under that same earlier wording, this regime also applies where the passenger was a minor and had not been able to enter into a contract, according to the mixed chamber (Cass. ch. mixte, 27 March 2026, No. 23-23.953). The same decision notes that the flying club, which did not organise the flight, had no need to seek parental authorisation. The file then rests on the investigation reports, the pilot’s qualifications and the insurance taken out.

Relatives may claim compensation for their emotional loss, their economic loss and the costs linked to the death, such as funeral expenses. Heirs may also exercise the rights that the victim had acquired before death. Proof of the relationship with the deceased is decisive. In litigation arising from a crash in the Comoros, the Paris court of appeal awarded the partner €25,000, taking into account the anguish of waiting before the death was announced. It rejected, however, the claim of that partner’s sister, holding that, in the absence of a family relationship with the victim, “it is for them to provide positive proof of their emotional bond with the deceased” (CA Paris, pôle 4 ch. 10, 19 May 2022, No. 19/12487) (our translation). The same court dismissed the economic loss claimed by the mother and the partner, for lack of proof of the support paid or of a shared household. It also rejected the direct victim’s claim for the anguish of imminent death, as no document established that the passengers had perceived the danger before impact. This judgment shows that no head of loss is granted as a matter of principle: statements, proof of cohabitation, regular transfers and evidence about the last minutes of the flight must be gathered early. Article 21 of the convention prohibits the carrier from limiting its compensation up to the threshold provided.

The Regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 as amended by Regulation (EC) No. 889/2002 requires a Community air carrier to pay an advance to the natural persons entitled to compensation. Under Article 5, this advance is paid without delay and, at the latest, fifteen days after the identification of the person concerned. In the event of death, it is not less than the euro equivalent of 16,000 special drawing rights per passenger. It is intended to meet immediate needs, in proportion to the material loss suffered. Payment does not amount to an admission of liability and the advance is deducted from the sums paid afterwards. It is not repayable, except where the victim’s negligence is established under Article 20 of the Montreal Convention or where the recipient was not entitled to compensation. Article 28 of the convention provides a comparable mechanism where the law of the carrier’s country requires it. For an airline from outside the Union, whether such an obligation exists therefore depends on its national legislation. The firm can prepare the request for the advance, justifying the status of each person entitled, then ensure that the sums paid are correctly set off at the final settlement or at the judicial assessment of the losses.

Article 33 of the Montreal Convention gives the claimant a choice between several courts of States Parties: that of the carrier’s domicile, of its principal place of business, of the place where it has an establishment through which the contract was made, or of the place of destination. For the death or injury of a passenger, a fifth option exists: the country where the passenger had his or her principal and permanent residence at the time of the accident, if the carrier operates services there and has premises there. This notion is assessed strictly. In the case of the disappearance of a flight between Malaysia and China, French families argued that the victims were to return to France. The Court of Cassation approved the court of appeal, holding that the intention to return “is closer not to the notion of residence, but to that of domicile”, and that the court of appeal had been entitled to place the residence in Beijing, “their fixed and permanent place of stay” (Cass. 1re civ., 12 May 2021, No. 19-24.229) (our translation). The French courts therefore lacked jurisdiction, an outcome unfavourable to the claimants. The same decision recalls that Article 29 subjects any action, even one based on the victims’ disappearance, to the conditions of the convention. The choice of court is prepared with documents establishing actual residence, before the time limit expires.

Yes, on the basis of liability for defective products. Article 1245 of the French Civil Code makes the producer liable for damage caused by a defect in its product, whether or not it is bound by contract to the victim. Article 1245-13 adds that its liability is not reduced by the act of a third party who contributed to the damage. After the accident of a flight between Surabaya and Singapore, the victims’ relatives sought an interim payment from the aircraft manufacturer and from the maker of an electronic module. The court of appeal had held the obligation to be seriously open to challenge, relying on the airline’s maintenance failings and the crew’s reactions. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, recalling that “the producer’s liability towards the victim is not reduced by the act of a third party who contributed to causing the damage” (Cass. 1re civ., 28 November 2018, No. 17-14.356) (our translation), since a defect in the module had been found. This action is subject to its own time limits. Article 1245-16 of the French Civil Code sets three years from the day on which the claimant knew, or should have known, of the damage, the defect and the identity of the producer. Under Article 1245-15, the producer’s liability is also extinguished ten years after the product was put into circulation, unless the producer was at fault or an action was brought during that period. It may be combined with the action against the carrier, without double compensation for the same loss.

The principle is in Article L. 6131-2 of the French Transport Code: the operator is liable, with no fault to be proved, for damage that the aircraft in motion, or anything falling from it, causes to persons and property on the ground. Only the victim’s own fault can reduce or remove this liability. For a foreign military aircraft, the Rennes court of appeal held, in light of the London Convention of 19 June 1951, that “any person who has suffered damage in French territory in connection with the crash of a military aircraft of foreign nationality, in this case Belgian, may claim compensation from the French State” (CA Rennes, 1st ch., 4 February 2025, No. 22/02172) (our translation). It required proof of ordinary-law damage and of a causal link, then awarded the farmers €47,852.50 for the loss of their wheat harvest. Their claim for disruption to their living conditions was rejected. These two outcomes illustrate the method: each head of loss must be documented. Exclusion zones set by order, the length of time the plots were inaccessible, pollution analyses and proof of lost income are the useful documents. They must be gathered before the wreckage is removed and the site restored.