Aviation law expert Attorney Ehud Pai told Ynet that the traumatic incident clearly establishes grounds for a lawsuit and entitlement to significant compensation for physical and psychological damages. "This is a traumatic event that by its nature could leave lasting effects," Pai warned, emphasizing that damages may emerge and worsen long after landing.
The law governing such incidents is set out in the Montreal Convention, which Israel adopted and which entered officially commenced in 2011. The Convention imposes significant liability on airlines whenever a passenger is injured, provided the incident occurred inside the aircraft or during the boarding or disembarking process.
Israeli courts have established in landmark rulings that a terrorist act is defined as an "accident" for all legal purposes, and that the term "bodily injury" includes pure psychological harm.
The legal cornerstone on this issue was laid by the Supreme Court in 1984, in the "Dadon ruling" against Air France. The case involved passengers on the 1976 flight from Ben Gurion Airport to Paris that was hijacked and diverted to Entebbe Airport in Uganda. The Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation and ruled that aircraft hijacking constitutes an "accident," and that psychological damage alone constitutes sufficient grounds for compensation. This precedent continues to serve as a central anchor and was cited in a 2022 District Court ruling.
However, as Attorney Pai reminded Ynet, eligibility is not automatic and requires proof of the incident itself, the extent of damage, and the direct causal connection between them. Under the Montreal Convention, compensation amounts are calculated according to "Special Drawing Rights" (SDR). For damage originating from an "accident," the airline's liability is almost absolute up to a ceiling of 151,880 SDR, equivalent to approximately 630,000 shekels.
If the proven damage exceeds this amount, the passenger can claim higher sums. In such cases, the airline can only be released from full liability if it proves the damage was not caused by its negligence or fault. According to Article 20 of the Convention, the air carrier is exempt from liability only if it proves it took all necessary measures to prevent the damage, or alternatively that the damage was caused solely by the fault or negligence of a third party.
The expected legal battle between the passengers and Fly Dubai is anticipated to be lengthy and complex, with the company likely attempting to avoid liability by arguing the damage was caused by a third party.
