We are not there yet! The end of the corona pandemic is far from near. The consequences of the corona virus are particularly visible during this summer period. Travel measures are constantly being adjusted and changed. In both Curaçao and the Netherlands, mandatory testing is one of the requirements for travel. Within Europe, proof of vaccination is sufficient for some countries. This seems to sufficiently cover the prevention of holidaymakers importing the virus. As expected, however, this policy is not watertight. In this context, the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate, hereinafter referred to as: 'ILT', has started an investigation into the inspection of tests and evidence by airlines. This has shown that airlines do not always check negative tests or vaccination certificates.
This blog briefly discusses the extent to which airlines can be held liable for this lack of control to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
In order to establish liability, there must be a breach of the duty of care that is causally related to the damage suffered (read: high infection rate of the coronavirus). In this case, the duty of care of the airlines is primarily fulfilled by the checks they must carry out on the travelers who must have the required papers. The question is, however, to what extent a breach of this duty of care can lead to liability. The question of causality between the inadequate check and the prevention of the spread of the coronavirus plays a major role in this. This question is further determined by the following factors.
Initially, it is the travellers themselves who must bear responsibility for the possession of the correct documents. It is worth noting that travellers have been aware for some time now of the fact that a check is not always carried out on the possession of vaccination and test certificates. As a result, a breach of the duty of care of the airlines is more appropriate, because travellers can enter more often without the correct documents. In this sense, the fact that this inadequate supervision takes place for journeys from high-risk countries also makes the shortcomings on the part of the airlines more serious.
Another but also important factor that needs to be taken into account in this picture is that governments are constantly setting new rules that make it difficult for airlines to control. After all, it is difficult to implement a policy when the policy in itself is subject to continuous change. A breach of the duty of care is less justified in this sense.
The starting point is and remains that damage cannot be completely prevented. This is also the starting point in the present case. The circumstances of the case must ultimately determine to what extent liability of the airline companies due to inadequate control is appropriate.
Duty of care and the associated liability risks do not only apply to airlines, of course.
Discussing liability risks that your company needs to consider? Then contact contact with us. We will be happy to help you.
About the authors
