韓亞悲劇:空難受害者能在哪裏起訴韓亞航空

The Asiana Airlines jet crash on Saturday will likely generate litigation. But where the bulk of it will take place is very much an open question.

韓亞航空(Asiana Airlines)上週六的飛機墜毀事故可能會引發訴訟。但大部分官司在哪裏打是個問題。

The U.S. is a highly sought venue for lawsuits because damage awards for pain and suffering and emotional distress in U.S. courts are typically much larger than in other countries. The crash, which killed two Chinese teenagers and injured 182 others, occurred on U.S. soil, but that doesn't guarantee entry into U.S. courts.

很多人想在美國打這場官司，因爲美國法院對傷痛、苦難和精神損害給予的賠償金額一般遠超其它國家。這次飛機失事造成中國兩名青少年遇難，182人受傷，事故發生在美國境內，但這並不能保證美國法院會受理此案。

The method of compensating victims of international airline crashes is governed by a treaty known as the Montreal Convention, which came into force in 2003. Under the treaty, Asiana, of South Korea, is automatically liable for as much as about $150,000 in damages per injured passenger─damages that would likely be paid by the airline's insurers, legal experts said. Passengers could seek more money from Asiana if they can show the airline was at fault for the crash.

有關國際航班空難遇難者的賠償問題適用2003年實施生效的《蒙特利爾公約》(Montreal Convention)。根據該公約，韓國的韓亞航空應自動爲每位受傷乘客賠償15萬美元左右。法律專家說，賠償費可能由韓亞航空的保險公司支付。如果乘客能拿出韓亞航空對墜機事故負有責任的證據，也許能要求該公司做出更多賠付。

But legal experts were divided on where passengers would be allowed to file any claims. The treaty allows victims of the crash to sue Asiana in U.S. courts if they are permanent U.S. residents, purchased tickets in the U.S. or were flying into the U.S. as a final destination.

但關於乘客可在何地提起訴訟的問題，法律專家看法不一。根據《蒙特利爾公約》的規定，如果遇難者是美國永久居民、在美國境內購票或飛往美國將其作爲最終目的地，則可向美國法院起訴韓亞航空。

Representatives of Asiana couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

記者無法立即聯繫到韓亞航空的代表置評。

Most of the passengers weren't U.S. residents, including 141 Chinese and 77 Koreans. There were 64 Americans aboard. A big question will likely be whether courts consider the U.S. a final destination for foreigners with round-trip tickets.

失事客機上的大多數乘客（包括中國籍141人和韓國籍77人）都不是美國居民，美國籍乘客爲64人。可能一個很重要的問題是，法院是否認爲美國是那些購買了往返票的外籍人士的最終目的地。

'For a Chinese person with a round-trip ticket, the final destination is China,' said Mike Danko, a trial lawyer based in Redwood City, Calif., who is working with foreign counsel for some of the victims. He predicted the U.S. courts would knock many of the passenger claims to foreign jurisdictions.

加州雷德伍德城(Redwood City)的庭辯律師、目前正與外國顧問一起代理部分傷亡者案件的丹科(Mike Danko)說，對於購買了返程票的中國人而言，其最終目的地是中國。他預測，美國法院會將很多乘客的索賠要求駁至外國司法管轄地。

But Ladd Sanger, an aviation lawyer and commercially rated pilot, said, 'I think there's a good argument that everyone on that airplane could bring a case in the U.S.'

但航空案件律師、商業飛行員桑格(Ladd Sanger)說，我認爲完全有理由提出，失事飛機上的所有人都可在美國提起訴訟。

Mr. Sanger said U.S. courts have split on the meaning of 'final destination' in the Warsaw Convention, the predecessor of the Montreal Convention.

桑格說，美國法院對於《蒙特利爾公約》的前身《華沙公約》(Warsaw Convention)中“最終目的地”一詞的含意存在分歧。

U.S. courts have occasionally ignored jurisdictional requirements of the treaty, he said, sending cases to the place where the crash occurred. That happened in the aftermath of Air France Flight 447, which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009, killing all 216 passengers and 12 aircrew.

他說，美國法院有時會忽略公約中的司法管轄權要求，直接在空難發生地提交案件。法國航空公司(Air France)447航班2009年在大西洋墜毀後，就有過這樣的案例。那次事故造成216名乘客和12名機組人員全部遇難。

Regardless of where claims against Asiana could be filed, passengers may still sue other parties in U.S. courts, such as the aircraft manufacturer, the aircraft-parts makers and the federal government, which controls air traffic, Mr. Danko said.

丹科說，無論在哪裏提起對韓亞航空的訴訟，都不影響乘客向美國法院起訴其它當事人，如飛機生產商、飛機零部件生產商和進行空中交通管理的美國聯邦政府。

The findings of the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the crash, aren't admissible in court. So it is possible a passenger could proceed with a claim against the manufacturer or another party besides Asiana, even if the NTSB concludes the crash was the result of pilot error, legal experts said.

美國國家運輸安全委員會(National Transportation Safety Board)正在調查這次墜機事故，但調查結果不會被美國法院採納。法律專家因此說，即使該委員會得出結論，認爲事故由飛行員失誤造成，乘客仍可將除韓亞航空外的飛機生產商或其它方告上法庭。

Under federal law, lawyers are prohibited from contacting victims or victims' families until 45 days after air crashes. In the past, according to Mr. Danko, airlines have used that time to make settlement offers.

依據美國聯邦法律，律師不得在空難發生後45天內聯繫受害人或其家屬。丹科表示，航空公司以前會用這段時間提出和解方案。