Externality Prevails: No Article 17 ‘Accident’ in Burn Injury Claim

Clyde & Co has successfully defended a personal injury claim arising from a hot drink spillage on board, securing a favourable Judgment in the Central London County Court.

Case details: Graham v Ethiopian Airlines Group, County Court at Central London, claim reference L02CL049, judgment of Her Honour Judge Tracey Bloom, 14 October 2025.

The decision provides welcome comfort for carriers and their insurers, confirming that English courts remain firmly grounded in established domestic and international precedent on the meaning of an Article 17 "accident", requiring an external cause. The Judgment reinforces the continued applicability of the US Supreme Court decision in Air France v Saks¹ and longstanding English authority, confirming that English courts are not bound by the broader interpretations of "accident" which have emerged from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in recent years. The case also highlights the importance of witness evidence, with the burden falling to the claimant to prove her case and, importantly, "to prove that there was an external event".

The claim was brought by a passenger who alleged she had suffered injury when a cup of hot coffee spilled during a flight. The central issue for the Court was whether the incident constituted an "accident" for the purposes of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention.

Application of Saks

Her Honour Judge Bloom confirmed she was bound to follow the Saks definition as applied in British Airways v Barclay², finding the Claimant, Ms Graham, had not "discharged the burden of proving an external factor, albeit an unknown factor, causing the slippage", finding it more plausible and likely that "the reason the cup fell over was due to her moving in her seat".

On behalf of Ethiopian Airlines, it was submitted that Saks, consistently reaffirmed in subsequent UK authorities including Barclay, requires an unexpected or unusual event external to the passenger and, crucially, a causative factor independent of the passenger's own actions. Accordingly, the Claimant bore the burden of proving that something other than her own actions caused the cup to fall.

This outcome underscores a critical point for defendants: claimants must establish a clearly identifiable external cause of an incident; it is not enough to rely on the mere fact of an injury occurring onboard.

Rejection of European Approach

The English courts are not bound to follow the more expansive interpretations of "accident" that have emerged out of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in recent years, notably the decision in Niki Luftfahrt (GN v ZU)³, which removes the externality factor from the test of "accident".

Her Honour Judge Bloom confirmed in her Judgment that the European decision was not binding upon her nor could she read the Advocate General's argument into the reasoning of the decision, as had been suggested by the Claimant's Counsel. She considered the CJEU's reasoning to be "thin", with it "merely looking at the unexpected nature of the event rather than looking at the external factor".

The Court therefore accepted that the proper analysis remained that set out in Saks and developed through subsequent English authorities. The Judge expressly found that the broader CJEU approach carried neither binding nor persuasive weight in the circumstances of the case.

Her Honour Judge Bloom accepted that whilst she did not need to be satisfied of precisely how the spillage occurred, she did have to be clear that the cause was external and not due to the Claimant's own actions.

Her Honour Judge Bloom concluded that, on the evidence before her, the Claimant had not established that any external factor caused the spillage. It was equally, if not more, plausible that the Claimant's own movement in her seat caused the cup to fall. That conclusion was reinforced by the strength and clarity of witness evidence given by the member of cabin crew who served the hot drink. The Claimant therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof and her claim failed.

The Judgment reflects an orthodox application of the Saks test and subsequent UK appellate authority, reaffirming the requirement for an unexpected or unusual external event that is independent of the passenger.

Evidence from Cabin Crew

The case also highlights the decisive role of strong factual witness evidence. The Court placed significant weight on the clear and consistent testimony of the cabin crew member, which supported the conclusion that no external event had been established.

The strength of that evidence was central to the Court's findings and serves as a reminder that contemporaneous witness evidence will often be critical where the precise mechanism of an onboard incident is disputed.

For operators and insurers, this serves as a practical reminder of the value of prompt evidence gathering, detailed witness statements where appropriate and consistent onboard reporting practices.

Significance for Carriers and Insurers

The Judgment provides renewed certainty for carriers and their insurers. It reaffirms the stability and predictability of the English approach to Article 17 claims, ensuring continued adherence to the established line of authority stemming from Saks. Equally, it limits the influence of broader European jurisprudence that dilutes the requirement for an external event, reducing the scope for claimants to rely upon the mere occurrence of an onboard injury.

Most significantly, the decision confirms that the requirement for an external causative event remains firmly embedded in English law and that claimants continue to bear the burden of proving its existence before liability can arise under Article 17.

The Defence team consisted of Craig Rooney, Sarah Bolt and Darcy Smith from Clyde & Co, with Christopher Loxton of Counsel. 

¹Air France v Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985)

²Barclay v British Airways plc [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 297

³Niki Luftfahrt GmbH v GN (Case C-532/18)