Library:
Good Samaritan
Published in the August 2009 issue of Transportation Notes - View Article
We do not normally report on cases from the Quebec Small Claims Court, partly because they are of little precedential value and also because they are so numerous that it would not be practically possible to give an account of the transportation-related jurisprudence of that busy court. However, a particularly interesting case was decided earlier this summer, arising out of medical services provided by a physician who was a passenger on an international flight. The physician presented a claim for compensation, which was allowed because of the quite unusual circumstances.
Dr. Coopersmith first responded to a typical request for assistance and treated one passenger. He was later wakened by the chief flight attendant who solicited his assistance to deal with a troublesome situation. Another physician was proposing to treat a different passenger, but the flight attendants were not satisfied that this physician had appropriate credentials and asked Dr. Coopersmith to intervene. He was reluctant to do so and did not initially volunteer. However, he eventually intervened and the outcome was positive. However, the concerns the flight attendants felt about the first physician were, the judge found, probably unfounded.
Dr. Coopersmith felt that the services he had rendered should be compensated and made a claim. Air Canada offered ex gratia compensation in the form of Aeroplan points. This was refused.
The judge first concluded that there was no possible claim in contract. However, article 1486 of the Civil Code defines a cause of action for one who, while being under no obligation to act, undertakes the “management of the business of another”. Such a person can be awarded damages for expenses (which includes the value of services rendered) and indemnity for “injury suffered” in the management of the business. The judge found the conditions of article 1486 had been met.
From our perspective, the most interesting issue is whether such a claim can be made given the exclusive liability regime created by the Montreal Convention. The judge, without much discussion or reference to authority, found it could. He concluded that “the fact that the legal situation developed during an international flight is merely incidental”, and allowed the claim. A fuller discussion of the basis for this conclusion will have to await another occasion.
Coopersmith c. Air Canada
[2009] Q.J. No. 8230