Civil Law and Urban Air Mobility Passenger Safety Claims in Europe

1. Introduction

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) refers to the emerging use of aircraft—particularly electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOLs), electric helicopters and other advanced air-mobility vehicles—to transport passengers within or around cities.

Passenger safety claims in UAM may arise from:

an eVTOL crash;

hard or emergency landing;

collision with another aircraft or infrastructure;

failure of autonomous or automated flight systems;

battery or propulsion failure;

software malfunction;

vertiport accidents;

unsafe boarding or disembarkation;

inadequate emergency response;

turbulence or unexpected movement;

defective seats, restraints or doors;

inadequate maintenance;

operator negligence;

defective aircraft components;

or inadequate medical assistance after an incident.

A crucial legal qualification is necessary at the outset: there is currently no substantial body of reported European case law specifically concerning passenger injuries in commercial eVTOL/UAM operations. UAM is still an emerging aviation sector. Contemporary legal scholarship likewise identifies the absence of settled passenger-eVTOL liability precedent. (Emerald Publishing)

Consequently, European courts would have to apply the existing aviation liability, product-liability, tort, contract, consumer-protection and insurance principles to UAM accidents.

The most useful existing authorities are therefore cases concerning conventional aircraft and aviation passenger liability.

2. The Legal Architecture of UAM Passenger Liability

A UAM passenger injury may potentially involve several legal regimes simultaneously.

1. Contractual liability

Passenger ↔ UAM operator.

The passenger purchases a transportation service, creating contractual obligations concerning:

safe carriage;

transportation to the agreed destination;

reasonable passenger protection;

compliance with applicable aviation requirements.

2. Aviation carrier liability

Where the Montreal Convention applies, passenger injury can trigger the special aviation-liability regime.

3. Product liability

Passenger ↔ aircraft/component manufacturer.

For example:

defective battery → thermal event → emergency landing → passenger injury.

The manufacturer may face product-liability claims.

4. Tort/delict liability

A passenger may potentially have a national-law claim involving:

negligence;

breach of statutory duty;

unsafe premises;

inadequate maintenance;

defective infrastructure.

5. Employer/operator liability

If the accident resulted from an employee's conduct, national law may impose vicarious liability upon the UAM operator.

6. Insurance liability

European aviation insurance requirements become particularly important because passenger claims may involve catastrophic injuries.

3. The Most Important Legal Question: Does the Montreal Convention Apply?

The first question in a UAM passenger claim is:

Is the particular UAM journey legally an "international carriage by air" covered by the Montreal Convention?

If the answer is yes, the Convention's passenger-injury regime becomes central.

The EU has incorporated the Montreal Convention framework into EU air-carrier liability law through Regulation 2027/97, as amended by Regulation 889/2002. The CJEU has repeatedly interpreted the Convention's passenger-liability provisions. (EUR-Lex)

For UAM, this could be straightforward for an international urban-air route.

For example:

Paris → Brussels by eVTOL

would raise a different question from:

Airport → downtown vertiport entirely within one Member State.

Domestic UAM journeys may instead be governed primarily by national civil and aviation law unless another EU/international regime applies.

4. Strict Liability Under Article 17

Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention establishes liability for death or bodily injury caused by an accident occurring:

on board the aircraft; or

during embarking or disembarking.

This is extremely important for UAM.

A passenger generally does not have to establish ordinary negligence merely to establish the carrier's basic Article 17 liability.

The CJEU has repeatedly emphasised the consumer-protective and strict-liability character of this system. (EUR-Lex)

This makes aviation passenger liability particularly attractive in UAM litigation.

5. Case Law 1 — Niki Luftfahrt

GN v ZU (Niki Luftfahrt)

Case C-532/18, Judgment of 19 December 2019

This is one of the most important cases for UAM passenger safety.

A passenger suffered burns when a cup of hot coffee spilled during a flight.

The question was whether this constituted an "accident" under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention.

The CJEU adopted a broad interpretation.

It held that an "accident" can include an unforeseen or harmful event occurring on board even where the event does not arise from a risk characteristically associated with aviation. (EUR-Lex)

Application to UAM

Imagine an eVTOL passenger suffers burns because:

a battery component overheats;

an onboard heater malfunctions;

a beverage container spills due to unexpected aircraft movement;

a cabin fitting detaches.

Under the reasoning of Niki Luftfahrt, the passenger would not necessarily have to demonstrate that the incident resulted from some uniquely aviation-specific danger.

Legal principle

The concept of "accident" under passenger-liability law is broader than the concept of an aircraft crash.

This is particularly valuable for UAM because many foreseeable UAM injuries may occur without an actual crash.

6. Case Law 2 — JR v Austrian Airlines

JR v Austrian Airlines AG

Case C-589/20, Judgment of 2 June 2022

This case involved a passenger who fell on a mobile stairway while disembarking.

The airline had not necessarily breached its safety obligations.

The CJEU nevertheless held that the fall constituted an "accident" for Article 17(1).

The Court emphasised that liability under Article 17 does not depend upon proving negligence by the airline. (EUR-Lex)

Importance for UAM

This case is particularly relevant to vertiport operations.

Imagine:

Passenger lands safely in an eVTOL → exits aircraft → slips on vertiport boarding platform → suffers fracture.

The operator might argue:

"The aircraft itself was perfectly safe."

That does not necessarily defeat passenger liability.

If the injury occurs during disembarkation, the Montreal Convention may potentially apply where its other requirements are satisfied.

Broader UAM implication

UAM safety law cannot focus exclusively on:

aircraft design;

propulsion;

flight control.

It must also address:

boarding;

landing platforms;

passenger movement;

doors;

stairs;

ramps;

vertiport surfaces;

evacuation procedures.

7. Case Law 3 — YL v Altenrhein Luftfahrt

YL v Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH

Case C-70/20, Judgment of 12 May 2021

This case concerned a passenger who allegedly suffered injury during a hard landing.

The CJEU concluded that a hard landing occurring within the normal operating range of the aircraft did not, in the circumstances of the case, automatically constitute an "accident" under Article 17. (EUR-Lex)

Why this matters enormously for eVTOLs

UAM aircraft may make:

automated landings;

steep vertical descents;

rapid decelerations;

emergency landings.

Not every uncomfortable or forceful landing will necessarily establish an aviation "accident."

A claimant may therefore need to establish that something sufficiently abnormal or unexpected occurred.

Example

Suppose:

eVTOL lands vertically at a force slightly higher than expected, causing back pain.

The operator might argue:

"The landing was within normal operating parameters."

YL demonstrates why technical evidence becomes crucial.

The court may need to examine:

aircraft certification limits;

landing-force parameters;

manufacturer specifications;

flight-data records;

automated flight logs;

pilot/operator procedures;

passenger seating design.

8. Case Law 4 — Austrian Airlines (First Aid)

DB v Austrian Airlines AG

Case C-510/21, Judgment of 6 July 2023

This case involved a passenger who was burned by hot coffee on board.

The initial injury was followed by allegedly inadequate first aid, which aggravated the injury.

The CJEU held that the original accident and the subsequent inadequate first aid could form part of a single accident because the events were sufficiently connected in time and space. (curia)

UAM significance

This principle could become highly important in autonomous or highly automated aircraft.

Imagine:

eVTOL makes emergency landing;

passenger sustains a fracture;

emergency evacuation is poorly conducted;

passenger suffers further injury;

medical assistance is delayed or inadequate.

The operator might attempt to argue:

"Our aircraft caused only the original injury; the later medical deterioration is a separate event."

Austrian Airlines suggests that courts may examine the entire connected sequence of events.

UAM liability chain

Aircraft incident

↓

Passenger injury

↓

Emergency evacuation

↓

First aid

↓

Aggravation

The legal analysis may treat these events as part of a connected accident rather than automatically separating them.

9. Case Law 5 — Walz v Clickair

Walz v Clickair SA

Case C-63/09, Judgment of 6 May 2010

Although this case concerned baggage rather than bodily injury, it is important for understanding the Montreal Convention's approach to compensation.

The CJEU examined the concept of "damage" and the Convention's liability limits. (InfoCuria)

UAM significance

Passenger UAM claims may include different categories of loss:

medical expenses;

rehabilitation;

lost earnings;

future loss of earning capacity;

physical pain;

psychological injury;

permanent disability;

death-related losses.

Walz demonstrates that the Montreal Convention contains a structured system concerning damage and liability limits rather than leaving every issue entirely to national tort law.

The case is therefore useful when analysing how compensation should be characterised.

10. Case Law 6 — DZ and Others v Slovak Ministry of Interior

DZ and Others v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky

Case C-283/22, Judgment of 16 November 2023

This case involved a helicopter operated by the public administration during a specialised rescue-training exercise.

The helicopter crashed and an officer died.

The CJEU examined:

the scope of the Montreal Convention;

"carriage performed by the State";

the meaning of "State aircraft";

air-carrier/operator insurance;

and passenger-death liability. (EUR-Lex)

Importance for UAM

This case is highly relevant to public-sector UAM.

Future urban-air-mobility systems may involve:

municipal air taxis;

public emergency eVTOLs;

police aircraft;

medical evacuation eVTOLs;

government-operated passenger services.

The legal character of the flight becomes important.

Example

A city authority operates an eVTOL to transport:

patients, emergency personnel or members of the public.

If an accident occurs, the question becomes:

Is this ordinary commercial carriage, state-operated aviation, or another category of aviation activity?

The answer can affect:

applicable liability rules;

insurance;

jurisdiction;

compensation;

and the availability of national-law remedies.

11. Case Law 7 — O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur

O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD

Case C-127/04, Judgment of 9 February 2006

This is not an aviation case, but it is highly relevant to UAM product liability.

The case concerned liability for a defective vaccine and the meaning of "putting into circulation" under the EU Product Liability Directive.

The CJEU considered the relationship between a manufacturer and its wholly owned distribution subsidiary. (InfoCuria)

Why it matters to eVTOL passenger claims

Suppose an eVTOL accident is caused by:

defective battery;

defective rotor;

faulty flight-control computer;

defective sensor;

defective restraint;

defective door;

defective navigation system.

The passenger may potentially have a product-liability claim against the relevant producer.

The important legal question becomes:

Who is legally the producer?

Potential defendants may include:

aircraft manufacturer;

component manufacturer;

battery manufacturer;

software/hardware supplier;

importer;

distributor.

O'Byrne illustrates why the structure of the supply chain can become important.

12. Case Law 8 — Sanofi Pasteur

Sanofi Pasteur, Case C-338/24

The CJEU's 26 March 2026 judgment concerns EU product-liability law, including:

the relationship between the strict product-liability system and fault-based liability;

limitation periods;

when the injured person becomes aware of damage;

and the ultimate limitation period. (curia)

Although the underlying product was not an eVTOL, the principles are directly relevant to defective-aircraft-component litigation.

UAM example

Suppose an eVTOL's battery contains a latent defect.

The defect causes no immediate injury during the first 50 flights.

On the 51st flight:

battery failure → emergency landing → passenger injury.

The manufacturer may argue:

"The passenger's claim is too late."

The court would need to examine the applicable product-liability limitation rules and when the relevant damage and causal information became known.

13. The Three Main Defendants in a UAM Passenger Claim

A passenger may potentially have claims against three major categories of defendants.

A. UAM Operator

Examples:

air-taxi company;

eVTOL airline;

mobility platform operating the service.

Potential liability:

unsafe operation;

inadequate maintenance;

pilot error;

inadequate automated-system monitoring;

defective emergency procedures;

inadequate passenger briefing;

unsafe boarding/disembarkation.

B. Manufacturer

Potential liability for:

defective aircraft;

defective battery;

propulsion failure;

flight-control malfunction;

software-related defect;

sensor defect;

structural defect.

This can trigger EU/national product-liability rules.

C. Vertiport Operator

Potential liability for:

unsafe landing surface;

defective passenger walkway;

inadequate lighting;

dangerous boarding area;

inadequate crowd management;

defective charging infrastructure;

unsafe evacuation arrangements.

This is especially important because UAM accidents can occur outside the aircraft itself.

14. Passenger Claims Based on Autonomous Flight

Autonomous or highly automated eVTOLs create a particularly difficult civil-liability problem.

Traditional aviation litigation often asks:

Did the pilot make a negligent decision?

For an autonomous UAM aircraft, the question could become:

Who is legally responsible when the algorithm makes the wrong decision?

Potentially responsible parties include:

operator;

aircraft manufacturer;

software developer;

AI-system provider;

sensor manufacturer;

maintenance organisation;

navigation-data provider.

15. Example: AI Flight-Control Failure

Imagine an autonomous eVTOL is transporting four passengers.

During flight:

sensor detects an obstacle;

software incorrectly classifies it;

aircraft performs an emergency manoeuvre;

passenger suffers spinal injury.

The passenger might assert:

Against operator

Failure to maintain safe operation.

Against manufacturer

Defective flight-control system.

Against software provider

Defective software, depending upon applicable legal rules.

Against sensor manufacturer

Defective sensor.

Against maintenance organisation

Failure to identify the malfunction.

This creates a multi-defendant liability problem.

16. Product Liability and Software

UAM makes the boundary between "product" and "service" increasingly complicated.

An eVTOL is obviously a physical product.

But its safety may depend upon:

embedded software;

cloud-based systems;

navigation databases;

AI algorithms;

communication systems;

cybersecurity systems.

If software contributes to an accident, courts will have to determine how the applicable EU product-liability framework interacts with national fault-based civil liability.

This is one reason UAM litigation could be more complex than traditional aircraft litigation.

17. Passenger Safety During Boarding

A passenger's journey does not necessarily begin when the aircraft leaves the ground.

Safety obligations may arise during:

arrival at the vertiport;

security procedures;

boarding;

movement into the aircraft;

fastening restraints;

take-off;

flight;

landing;

disembarkation.

JR v Austrian Airlines is especially useful because it shows that an injury occurring during disembarkation can fall within the aviation passenger-liability regime. (EUR-Lex)

Thus, UAM operators should treat the entire passenger-handling process as part of the safety system.

18. Passenger Psychological Injury

A UAM accident might cause:

PTSD;

anxiety;

fear of flying;

depression;

psychological trauma.

The legal treatment depends on the applicable liability regime and proof of compensable damage.

The claimant may need:

medical evidence;

psychiatric evidence;

causal evidence;

evidence of functional impairment;

evidence of future treatment.

A court must distinguish between:

ordinary fear or inconvenience

and

medically recognised psychological injury.

19. Death of a UAM Passenger

A fatal eVTOL crash could generate claims from:

spouse;

children;

dependants;

estate;

other persons recognised by applicable law.

Potential heads of damage may include:

funeral expenses;

loss of financial support;

loss of services;

dependency losses;

certain non-economic losses;

other damages recognised by applicable law.

The exact calculation depends heavily upon the governing aviation and national civil-law framework.

20. Contributory Negligence

A passenger may also contribute to the injury.

For example:

passenger refuses to use a seatbelt;

passenger opens an emergency door;

passenger ignores safety instructions;

passenger enters a restricted area;

passenger interferes with controls.

JR v Austrian Airlines is especially useful here.

The CJEU recognised that the carrier may obtain an exoneration to the extent that the passenger's own negligence or wrongful act caused or contributed to the damage. (EUR-Lex)

Therefore:

Strict carrier liability does not necessarily mean automatic full compensation regardless of passenger conduct.

21. The Importance of the Two-Year Montreal Limitation Period

The Montreal Convention contains a particularly important two-year limitation period for actions for damages.

This can be crucial in UAM litigation.

A passenger might think:

"I can wait because my injuries are still developing."

That can be dangerous.

The legal limitation regime must be determined at the beginning of the claim.

The Austrian Airlines (First Aid) case itself involved an argument about the two-year period and whether the later injury was part of the original accident. (curia)

22. UAM Passenger Safety and Insurance

Insurance will probably be one of the most important practical mechanisms for UAM compensation.

A serious eVTOL crash could produce:

multiple passenger claims;

ground injuries;

property damage;

infrastructure damage;

business interruption;

environmental damage.

Insurance therefore functions as a financial bridge between:

liability → compensation.

The CJEU's DZ judgment is relevant because it addresses the relationship between aviation liability and mandatory insurance in the context of a helicopter operated by a public administration. (EUR-Lex)

23. Evidence in UAM Passenger Litigation

UAM litigation will be heavily evidence-driven.

Important evidence may include:

Aircraft evidence

flight-data recorder;

battery-management records;

propulsion data;

maintenance logs;

sensor records.

Digital evidence

software logs;

AI decision logs;

navigation data;

communications;

cybersecurity records.

Operator evidence

pilot records;

remote-operator records;

training documents;

safety-management-system records.

Passenger evidence

medical records;

photographs;

witness statements;

passenger communications;

psychological assessments.

Vertiport evidence

CCTV;

surface inspection records;

weather information;

access-control records;

evacuation records.

24. The Causal Chain in UAM Litigation

A court may need to determine:

Defect/event

↓

Aircraft response

↓

Accident

↓

Passenger injury

↓

Medical treatment

↓

Aggravation

↓

Economic/non-economic damage

This becomes especially important in autonomous aircraft.

For example:

defective sensor → incorrect AI decision → emergency manoeuvre → passenger falls → delayed medical treatment → permanent disability.

There could potentially be several legally significant causal events.

The reasoning in Austrian Airlines (First Aid) is therefore particularly relevant because the CJEU recognised that a connected sequence of events can constitute one accident. (curia)

25. Contractual Liability vs Tort Liability

A passenger should therefore not assume that there is only one possible cause of action.

26. UAM and Consumer Protection

UAM passengers are likely to be consumers.

Therefore, passenger safety disputes may also involve:

unfair contract terms;

consumer information;

cancellation rights;

transparency;

accessibility;

disability accommodation;

data protection;

automated decision-making.

However, where the Montreal Convention specifically governs physical injury, it may operate as the primary framework for that particular claim.

27. UAM Accident Scenario — Legal Analysis

Consider this hypothetical.

Facts

An autonomous eVTOL flies five passengers across a European city.

A navigation sensor malfunctions.

The aircraft makes an emergency descent.

One passenger suffers:

spinal injury;

psychological trauma;

loss of earnings.

Another passenger is injured while evacuating at the vertiport.

A third passenger develops complications because emergency medical treatment is delayed.

Possible claims

Passenger 1

Operator

→ aviation passenger liability.

Manufacturer

→ product liability.

Sensor manufacturer

→ defective-component claim.

Passenger 2

Operator/vertiport

→ accident during evacuation/disembarkation.

Passenger 3

Operator

→ accident plus consequential aggravation.

Medical provider

→ potentially separate national-law claim depending on circumstances.

28. Applying the Case Law

Niki Luftfahrt

The accident concept should not be narrowly confined to aircraft crashes. (EUR-Lex)

JR v Austrian Airlines

An injury during disembarkation may constitute an accident even without carrier negligence. (EUR-Lex)

YL v Altenrhein

A hard landing is not automatically an accident; the technical circumstances matter. (EUR-Lex)

Austrian Airlines — First Aid

An initial accident and subsequent inadequate first aid may form a single accident where the events are sufficiently connected. (curia)

Walz

The Montreal Convention provides a structured compensation/liability system rather than unrestricted national-law recovery. (InfoCuria)

DZ

The status of the aircraft/operator and insurance framework matters, especially for state-operated aviation. (EUR-Lex)

O'Byrne

Product-liability analysis may extend beyond the immediate aircraft operator to the producer and distribution chain. (InfoCuria)

Sanofi Pasteur

Limitation and the interaction between product liability and fault-based liability can become critical in defective-component litigation. (curia)

29. Important Legal Principles for UAM

Principle 1 — UAM is aviation, but UAM liability is not only aviation law

A passenger may simultaneously encounter:

aviation law;

contract law;

tort law;

product liability;

insurance law;

consumer law;

data law;

technology law.

Principle 2 — "No pilot negligence" does not necessarily defeat a passenger claim

This is especially important for autonomous eVTOLs.

The Montreal Convention's passenger-liability framework can operate without traditional negligence proof where its requirements are satisfied. Niki Luftfahrt and JR demonstrate this. (EUR-Lex)

Principle 3 — Not every abnormal landing is an accident

YL provides an important limitation.

Technical evidence concerning the aircraft's normal operating range may determine whether the event qualifies as an "accident." (EUR-Lex)

Principle 4 — Vertiport safety matters

The passenger's legal protection cannot be limited to the airborne portion of the trip.

Boarding and disembarkation may be legally significant.

Principle 5 — Product liability will become increasingly important

As UAM becomes more automated, passenger claims may increasingly concern:

batteries;

sensors;

flight computers;

software;

navigation systems;

autonomous-control technology.

30. Case-Law Table

31. Overall Legal Position

The emerging European position can be summarised as follows:

There is not yet a mature body of European case law specifically dealing with passenger injuries caused by commercial eVTOL/UAM aircraft.

Nevertheless, the existing aviation jurisprudence provides a strong legal foundation.

The most important principle is that passenger protection under European aviation law is not dependent exclusively on proving conventional pilot negligence.

The CJEU's jurisprudence gives particular importance to:

the concept of "accident";

bodily injury;

embarking and disembarking;

causation;

passenger contributory negligence;

compensation;

limitation periods;

insurance;

and the relationship between aviation liability and national civil law. (Mobility and Transport)

For UAM, this produces a layered liability structure:

Passenger

↓

UAM transport contract

↓

Operator/carrier liability

↓

Montreal Convention where applicable

↓

Product liability against manufacturer

↓

Tort/delict liability under national law

↓

Vertiport/infrastructure liability

↓

Insurance and compensation

32. Conclusion

Urban Air Mobility will test traditional European civil-liability principles because an eVTOL is simultaneously:

an aircraft;

a consumer transport service;

a sophisticated technological product;

a software-controlled system;

and part of an urban infrastructure network.

The strongest existing authorities indicate that a future European court would probably begin by asking:

Was there a contract of carriage?

Does the Montreal Convention apply?

Did an "accident" occur?

Did it occur on board or during embarking/disembarking?

Was there bodily injury?

Did passenger conduct contribute to the damage?

What compensation is recoverable?

Is the claim within the applicable limitation period?

Was the aircraft/component defective?

Could the operator, manufacturer, software provider, maintenance organisation or vertiport operator also be liable under national/EU civil law?

The central lesson from Niki Luftfahrt, YL, JR, Austrian Airlines, Walz and DZ is that European aviation passenger liability is capable of adapting to new forms of aircraft even though the specific UAM/eVTOL case law has not yet developed. (EUR-Lex)

For an actual UAM accident, however, the precise route, whether the journey is international, the operator's legal status, the aircraft's certification/status, the applicable contract, and the Member State's national civil law would be decisive.