The claimant was injured in a hot air balloon. The defendant relied on the Rules in the Act to limit his liability to two years after the event.
Held: An internal flight in a hot air balloon was to be characterised as a journey by aircraft. The two year limitation period applied.
Eady J
[2008] EWHC 788 (QB), Times 23-Apr-2008, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1076, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 34, [2008] 4 All ER 494
Bailii
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Personal Injury, Transport
Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.266967