32

In most long-distance trains, notably in Europe, there are big racks for the larger bags and a shelf above the seats that runs the entire length of the car for smaller ones. The latter is also used for large suitcases when the train is rather full.

Recently, I had put a backpack on the shelf and took appropriate care to position it correctly. Two hours within the ride, while I was not paying attention, my backpack fell on the empty seat next to me. It may have moved with the small shakes of the train at random moments, until it tipped over the edge.

In this case, I was lucky. There was no one in the seat.

But it could have happened otherwise. If the falling bag injures a passenger, or damages a laptop on the tray table for instance, who is liable and what to do?

This can especially happen in double-decker trains where the roof of the top floor is rounded, leaving much less space in the overhead rack. Hours ago, I saw a similar incident happen on board a German ICE, as the train took a turn at high speed and the centrifugal force was enough to move the item off balance. In different situations, a slanted stretch of tracks can cause the bags to slide off.

This is why I am wondering if bearing full liability would be the standard, or if the railway can be involved for "bad" shelf design.

JonathanReez
  • 4,301
  • 3
  • 30
  • 59
  • 13
    Perhaps the first question is: If it's your bag, and you put it there, why wouldn't you be responsible? – Kyralessa Sep 12 '23 at 16:09
  • 27
    @Kyralessa while the OP put the bag on the rack, the OP didn't cause the bag to fall off. As a thought experiment, should the OP be responsible if another person knocks the OP's bag off the rack while putting their bag on the rack? If you agree that the OP is not responsible in that case, then you have also agreed that the OP is not automatically liable in all cases. – Peter M Sep 12 '23 at 16:33
  • Interest only / related: I have seen an aircraft's large overhead locker open during takeoff roll and bags rain down - fortunately onto an unoccupied area. – Russell McMahon Sep 13 '23 at 11:35
  • 7
    The what to do is the same as after a car accident: Provide first aid if necessary. Write a report of what happened, preferably together with the other party. Get contact data of the other party and potential witnesses. – Joooeey Sep 13 '23 at 11:46
  • @RussellMcMahon Now if OP's scenario happened on an international airline flight, the answer would be different than a train, as the Montreal Convention imposes strict liability on the air carrier. – user71659 Sep 14 '23 at 05:45
  • 9
    My gut feeling is that the situation is very different between Europe and the U.S. Americans are much more obsessed with and afraid of liability issues than Europeans. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Sep 14 '23 at 08:23
  • Related. – Trang Oul Sep 14 '23 at 08:37
  • 3
    @Kyralessa Because they used the rack as intended: To store a bag. If the rack fails to hold the bag, assuming proper usage, that may point to a design flaw, which may put the blame on the operator of the rack / train. – tim Sep 14 '23 at 11:23
  • 1
    Four years ago I've seen a heavy luggage fall with extreme speed on an empty seat when the train took a very sharp turn, and I'm pretty convinced that if someone had been in that seat and had received it on the head, they'd be dead. Now I pay very close attention to all luggage that passengers put on rack and it's extremely distressing how a majority of passengers seems to have no common sense at all when it comes to putting luggage in a reasonable position. – Stef Sep 14 '23 at 16:06
  • @Kyralessa At least in some countries/trains, because passengers are required to put their bags on the overhead shelves. If you travel on a Swedish train, for example, conductors will actively order you to move your bags to the overhead shelf if you leave it on an empty seat or the floor. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Sep 15 '23 at 23:50

3 Answers3

22

It depends on whose (in)actions caused the damage. Perhaps passenger A was negligent in positioning their luggage in the overhead rack. Possibly passenger B was negligent in rearranging A's bag. Rail company C might be liable either because their engineer was driving recklessly, or because the luggage rack was foreseeably inadequate for securing the intended luggage (something with no edge). Then again, A might have put a too-large bag in the rack.

The situation with airlines is similar, except that there are regulations requiring airlines to check the security of luggage and they have to check luggage (and warn passengers about shifting luggage). Failure to check the security of a compartment would be an inaction that can lead to liability.

user6726
  • 214,947
  • 11
  • 343
  • 576
  • 24
    And it's not necessarily all-or-nothing. A court could find, for example, that the passenger owning the bag is partly responsible for negligently failing to secure the bag, but the railway company is also partly responsible for negligently failing to properly maintain the tracks to avoid rough sections. – Kyralessa Sep 13 '23 at 06:58
  • 1
    @Kyralessa You can also say the rail carrier (the company operating the vehicle and not the company maintaining the tracks, which might be separate companies) could be liable for not offering a method to secure overhead baggage compartments with a door like is provided in most airline overhead bins. – hszmv Sep 13 '23 at 10:43
  • 7
    I assume this question was moved to Law SE since the fault here would always belong to the Law of Gravity, without which the bag would not have fallen. – AdamV Sep 13 '23 at 20:20
12

I am assuming you are asking about liability in negligence, which requires breaching the standard of care when you owed a duty to someone.

Your stipulation that you "took appropriate care" answers the legal question: if it is in fact the case that you "took appropriate care", there is no liability for negligence for the bag falling on someone.

user6726 correctly explains further that if there is liability in negligence for the bag falling on someone, it would be on a party who (1) owed a duty to the person who was injured (or whose property was damaged); and (2) failed to take the requisite care.

Eduardo Rocha
  • 103
  • 1
Jen
  • 54,294
  • 5
  • 110
  • 242
4

The answer is complicated. In Germany, there is a liability law, which even addresses trains specifically (in the first paragraph!): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/haftpflg/BJNR002070871.html

§ 1
(1) Wird bei dem Betrieb einer Schienenbahn oder einer Schwebebahn ein Mensch getötet, der Körper oder die Gesundheit eines Menschen verletzt oder eine Sache beschädigt, so ist der Betriebsunternehmer dem Geschädigten zum Ersatz des daraus entstehenden Schadens verpflichtet.

(2) Die Ersatzpflicht ist ausgeschlossen, wenn der Unfall durch höhere Gewalt verursacht ist.

(3) Die Ersatzpflicht ist ferner ausgeschlossen, wenn eine

1. zur Aufbewahrung angenommene Sache beschädigt wird;

2. beförderte Sache beschädigt wird, es sei denn, daß ein Fahrgast sie an sich trägt oder mit sich führt.

I couldn't find an official translation, so here is a Google translation (slightly redacted by me):

(1) If a person is killed, a person's body or health is injured or an item is damaged during the operation of a railway or a suspension railway, the operating company is obliged to compensate the injured party for the resulting damage.

(2) The obligation to pay compensation is excluded if the accident is caused by force majeure.

(3) The obligation to pay compensation is also excluded if a

  1. the item accepted for storage is damaged;
  2. The item being transported is damaged unless a passenger is carrying it or taking it on the train ride.

Depending on the specifics, the train operator or the passenger could be liable. In some of the cases you describe I would assume the train operator is liable but ultimately a court would need to decide based on the specifics.

Roland
  • 671
  • 4
  • 5
  • 4
    It may also be that while the train operator is liable to the injured party, they are able, in turn, to seek redress from a party that stowed luggage negligently. – JCRM Sep 13 '23 at 08:46
  • @JCRM Yes, but OTOH it is the duty of the train operator to provide necessary facilities for storing luggage in a safe way. – Roland Sep 13 '23 at 09:22
  • 4
    While that is the right law, you miss a very crucial point: it's extremely trivial to point out that the passenger that did put the luggage in the overhead compartment was negligent and thus not DB is responsible but the luggage owner. Also, the Beförderungsvertrag demands, that the luggage owner stows the luggage properly, which includes that it has to be stowed in a way that does not permit it to fall - which shifts the negligence to the luggage owner. – Trish Sep 13 '23 at 09:41
  • 4
    @Trish I believe the law means that DB would need to prove that the passenger was negligent. I don't agree that doing so is always trivial, although DB would certainly agree with that position. – Roland Sep 13 '23 at 10:44
  • 1
    absolutely @Roland,but that's for the operator and the allegedly negligent passenger to argue about, not the injured passenger – JCRM Sep 13 '23 at 10:57
  • @JCRM The Bahn has overengineered the baggage bags in such a way that you need to clearly misuse them (e.g. have the baggage hang out more than 50%) so that baggage falls out of them. – Trish Sep 13 '23 at 11:27
  • 1
    Again, that's for the operator and the alleged negligent passenger to argue about @Trish Given that it's for them to argue about, it's no surprise that the operator has done everything in its power to make such an eventuality unlikely. – JCRM Sep 13 '23 at 15:12
  • Does this mean that if I'm hurt or my things are damaged on a train, then DB has to pay my damages even if it is someone else's fault (presumably they can go after the party at fault to recover the money) so that I'm not stuck if the guilty party cannot be found or has no money? – gnasher729 Sep 14 '23 at 07:38
  • 1
    "The obligation to pay compensation is also excluded if an item accepted for storage is damaged"??? That's when I would have thought they would be specifically responsible? Or does that just exclude "DB has to pay even if it is not their fault", and if it is their fault they still have to pay? – gnasher729 Sep 14 '23 at 07:41
  • @gnasher729 (1) IANAL but that's my interpretation. (2) The third section basically excludes freight and storage at stations. I expect general liability regulations (BGB) would apply in these cases. – Roland Sep 14 '23 at 07:54