Damaged wine bottle

[vinilink]

Not sure whether this is the right section for this thread.

Anyway, when I arrived at Changi one of expensive wine bottle out of six was broken during flights to SIN from SYD via ADL. I assume it was damaged either at SYD or ADL as it was wrapped & taped in a Q plastic bag.

I contacted Qantas on this matter, but they said it is my responsibility as per their damaged baggage condition "Except to the extent required by law, Qantas is not liable for fragile, perishable or valuable items."

Has anyone had damaged wine bottles during flight and were able to claim for it if not insured?

TIA.
David

 

[NM]

How was it packaged? I expect that if you cannot show that it was packed appropriately for carriage as checked baggage, and that the item was damaged due to being mistreated, then Qantas will not compensate for the damage.

 

[vinilink]

How was it packaged? I expect that if you cannot show that it was packed appropriately for carriage as checked baggage, and that the item was damaged due to being mistreated, then Qantas will not compensate for the damage.

It was packaged in a wine box and put fragile sticker on it as usual then took it to large item baggage check in area as per instruction given at the check in counter.
I took the pictures of damaged box and damaged bottle just in case if they ask for proof. And damaged bottle was sitting right in the centre of the box (6pack laydown)
If it was relatively cheap wine, I would ignore it but it 1999 vintage and cost me over $200 a bottle to buy it.

 

[TheInsider]

It was packaged in a wine box and put fragile sticker on it as usual then took it to large item baggage check in area as per instruction given at the check in counter.
I took the pictures of damaged box and damaged bottle just in case if they ask for proof. And damaged bottle was sitting right in the centre of the box (6pack laydown)
If it was relatively cheap wine, I would ignore it but it 1999 vintage and cost me over $200 a bottle to buy it.

To put it bluntly, you will not get anything back. That is the risk people take when taking fragile items as luggage on an aircraft.. Now freight is a different matter.

 

[vinilink]

To put it bluntly, you will not get anything back. That is the risk people take when taking fragile items as luggage on an aircraft.. Now freight is a different matter.

Thanks for your reply. Now I can leave this matter to an end.

 

[Skoogle]

The law says:

All services you buy must be:

• carried out with due skill and care
• fit for the purpose for which they are acquired (if you have made a specific purpose known to the seller and have relied on the seller’s skills or judgement).

If you believe that Qantas has not complied with the law, than by their own rules, they would be liable.

 

[JohnK]

Would travel insurance cover for these types of incidents?

I guess it is a risk we take when carrying fragile items on an aircraft. I check-in golf clubs quite regularly and up until recently I used to be asked to sign the luggage tag that I acknowledge that the airline is not responsible for my golf clubs. One time on a trip to Thailand the shaft on the driver snapped when I arrived at the destination. I think it cost ~$60 to get the driver re-shafted and I did not bother claiming it on travel insurance.

 

[vinilink]

The law says:
If you believe that Qantas has not complied with the law, than by their own rules, they would be liable.

Thanks for the tip Skoogle and looks like I can't put to an end now!
I will contact Qantas and tell them about their obligation.

When I faxed damage claim form to them, their response was to say it was passenger's responsibility if any of checked in fragile items are damaged during transit with standard set-out letter.

 

[vinilink]

Would travel insurance cover for these types of incidents?

I guess it is a risk we take when carrying fragile items on an aircraft. I check-in golf clubs quite regularly and up until recently I used to be asked to sign the luggage tag that I acknowledge that the airline is not responsible for my golf clubs. One time on a trip to Thailand the shaft on the driver snapped when I arrived at the destination. I think it cost ~$60 to get the driver re-shafted and I did not bother claiming it on travel insurance.

Not on this occasion, but they usually asked me to sign the luggage tag if others properties are damaged by wine spillage in case of breakage. This clearly shows that it was broken during handling rather than during transit.

 

[serfty]

To put it bluntly, you will not get anything back. That is the risk people take when taking fragile items as luggage on an aircraft.. Now freight is a different matter.

That is incorrect, Qantas can only avoid liability if they can prove the packaging was inadequate for its normal use ... see below.

The law says:
If you believe that Qantas has not complied with the law, than by their own rules, they would be liable.

Since this was an international flight from Australia the "Montreal Convention" applies.

Interestingly enough, "Montreal Convention" would override any airline T&C's that may attempt to free said airline from responsibility for "Fragile items".

See article 17 of the "Montreal Convention": Montrealconvention.org - Article 17

This is subject to "However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage.".

When you post "Wine Box" was this a cardboard wine box or was it something like Australia Post sells (http://auspost.com.au/personal/packaging-materials.html#special). If the latter then Qantas would have a hard time proving such inherent defect/quality/vice.

For example, here's an excerpt for a US DOT information site: (http://AirConsumer.DOT.gov/rules/webnotice_04012009.pdf)

"We have become aware of tariff provisions filed by several carriers that attempt, with respect to checked baggage, to exclude certain items, generally high-cost or fragile items such as electronics, cameras, jewelry or antiques, from liability for damage, delay, loss or theft. A typical provision found in carrier tariffs and disclosed on carrier websites states that the carrier does not assume liability for loss, damage, or delay of "certain specific items, including: . . . antiques, documents, electronic equipment, film, jewelry, keys, manuscripts, medication, money, paintings, photographs . . . ."

Such exclusions, while not prohibited in domestic contracts of carriage, are in contravention of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention (Convention), as revised on May 28, 1999. Article 17 provides that carriers are liable for damaged or lost baggage if the destruction, loss or damage” occurred while the checked baggage was within the custody of the carrier, except to the extent that the damage "resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage." Article 19 provides that a carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of baggage, except to the extent that it proves that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. Although carriers may wish to have tariff terms that prohibit passengers from including certain items in checked baggage, once a carrier accepts checked baggage, whatever is contained in the checked baggage is protected, subject to the terms of the Convention, up to the limit of 1000 SDRs (Convention, Article 22, para.2.). Carriers should review their filed tariffs on this matter and modify their tariffs and their baggage claim policies, if necessary, to conform to the terms of the Convention. In addition, carriers should ensure that their websites do not contain improper information regarding baggage liability exclusions applicable to international service."

 

[vinilink]

That is incorrect, Qantas can only avoid liability if they can prove the packaging was inadequate for its normal use ... see below.
Since this was an international flight from Australia the "Montreal Convention" applies.

Interestingly enough, "Montreal Convention" would override any airline T&C's that may attempt to free said airline from responsibility for "Fragile items".

See article 17 of the "Montreal Convention": Montrealconvention.org - Article 17

This is subject to "However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage.".

When you post "Wine Box" was this a cardboard wine box or was it something like Australia Post sells (Australia Post - Packaging materials). If the latter then Qantas would have a hard time proving such inherent defect/quality/vice.

For example, here's an excerpt for a US DOT information site: (http://AirConsumer.DOT.gov/rules/webnotice_04012009.pdf)

Wines were checked-in as in the cardboard wine box

I will follow up with Qantas with Montreal Convention.

 

[vinilink]

That is incorrect, Qantas can only avoid liability if they can prove the packaging was inadequate for its normal use ... see below.
Since this was an international flight from Australia the "Montreal Convention" applies.

Interestingly enough, "Montreal Convention" would override any airline T&C's that may attempt to free said airline from responsibility for "Fragile items".

See article 17 of the "Montreal Convention": Montrealconvention.org - Article 17

This is subject to "However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage.".

When you post "Wine Box" was this a cardboard wine box or was it something like Australia Post sells (Australia Post - Packaging materials). If the latter then Qantas would have a hard time proving such inherent defect/quality/vice.

For example, here's an excerpt for a US DOT information site: (http://AirConsumer.DOT.gov/rules/webnotice_04012009.pdf)

Hi serfty,

Today, Qantas faxed to my questions regarding Montreal Convention and this was their reply:

"As spoken pertaining to your broken wine bottle herewith is the Restriction on checked baggage and our Liability for damaged to your baggage. You can read it from our www.qantas.com. under baggage.

16.5 Our Liability for Damage to Your Baggage

(a) General

• We will be liable only for damage or delay occurring during carriage ticketed on our Airline Designator Code. If we issue a Ticket or check Baggage on the Airline Designator Code of another Carrier, we only do so as agent for that Carrier. Nevertheless, with respect to Checked Baggage, you may also have a right of action against the first or last Carrier.
• We are not liable for any damage to Your Cabin Baggage to the extent caused or contributed to by your negligence.
• We are not liable for any damage caused by your Baggage. You are responsible for any damage caused by your Baggage to other persons or property, including our property.
• Except to the extent required by law, we are not liable for damage or delay to items which you are asked not to include in your Checked Baggage (under 7.4). These items include fragile or perishable items, items with a special value, such as money, jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic

If you have travel insurance, you maybe able to claim the differenc. We would be happy to provide you with any relevant information that your insurer may require".

But I see next line which they didn't include;

(b) International Carriage

• Where your travel is International Carriage and a Convention applies, our liability for damage to Checked Baggage is limited by the Convention except where you prove that the damage resulted from an act or failure to act either done with the intention to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result
• Our liability for loss of, damage to, or delay in the carriage of, your Baggage is limited by the applicable Convention as follows:
• Conventions other than the Montreal Convention 1999 - 250 francs (about AU$32) for each kilo of your Checked Baggage affected or 5,000 francs (about AU$640) for your Cabin Baggage, unless A25 of the Warsaw Convention applies, in which case these limits do not apply
• Montreal Convention 1999 - 1,131 SDRs (about AU$1,950) coughulative for both Checked Baggage and Cabin Baggage. In the case of Checked Baggage, we will not be liable if the Baggage was defective, unless A.22.5 of the Montreal 1999 Convention applies in which case these limits do not apply. We will only be liable for Cabin Baggage if we were at fault

However, if the law which applies provides for different limits of liability, those different limits will apply.
If the weight of your Checked Baggage is not recorded on your Baggage Check, we will presume that it is not more than the free allowance for the relevant class of carriage (see 7.1).

Since my flight was international, I should be covered under section (b), I believe.

 

[james4321]

Hi Vinilink. This wouldn't have been available to you since you left from SYD, but for the benefit of anyone departing either MEL or BNE there is a product called 'Wineskin' which seals and protects bottles - you can get them from the Protectabag luggage wrapping service at those airports.

 

[serfty]

...
Since my flight was international, I should be covered under section (b), I believe.

Since:

• Your flight was International, and
• On Qantas being a registered Australian Carrier and
• Australia is a signatory to the Montreal Convention,

Then the Montreal convention applies.

Note however that (IMHO) as you were shipping the wine in a standard cardboard wine box then you probably have no recourse under "Montreal" as I doubt such a container would be adequate for the purposes of shipping as checked luggage under the "inherent defect, quality or vice" provisions of the convention.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

• If you have travel insurance, you maybe able to claim the differenc. We would be happy to provide you with any relevant information that your insurer may require".

But I see next line which they didn't include;

(b) International Carriage

• Where your travel is International Carriage and a Convention applies, our liability for damage to Checked Baggage is limited by the Convention except where you prove that the damage resulted from an act or failure to act either done with the intention to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result
• Our liability for loss of, damage to, or delay in the carriage of, your Baggage is limited by the applicable Convention as follows:
• Conventions other than the Montreal Convention 1999 - 250 francs (about AU$32) for each kilo of your Checked Baggage affected or 5,000 francs (about AU$640) for your Cabin Baggage, unless A25 of the Warsaw Convention applies, in which case these limits do not apply
• Montreal Convention 1999 - 1,131 SDRs (about AU$1,950) coughulative for both Checked Baggage and Cabin Baggage. In the case of Checked Baggage, we will not be liable if the Baggage was defective, unless A.22.5 of the Montreal 1999 Convention applies in which case these limits do not apply. We will only be liable for Cabin Baggage if we were at fault

However, if the law which applies provides for different limits of liability, those different limits will apply.
If the weight of your Checked Baggage is not recorded on your Baggage Check, we will presume that it is not more than the free allowance for the relevant class of carriage (see 7.1).

Since my flight was international, I should be covered under section (b), I believe.

Okay so who knows what A.22.5 of the Montreal Convention is WRT to sentence below?

"In the case of Checked Baggage, we will not be liable if the Baggage was defective, unless A.22.5 of the Montreal 1999 Convention applies in which case these limits do not apply".

 

[PineappleSkip]

Note however that (IMHO) as you were shipping the wine in a standard cardboard wine box then you probably have no recourse under "Montreal" as I doubt such a container would be adequate for the purposes of shipping as checked luggage under the "inherent defect, quality or vice" provisions of the convention.

I'd keep arguing. The whole point of the montreal convention is to limit their liability to the values referred to, not to avoid liability.

I presume that the container has the cardboard dividers for separating the wine bottles; i.e. its specifically designed for the storage and transport of wine. I also wonder did they indicate when you checked it in that they considered the packaging was inadequate? If they didn't they would appear to have an uphill struggle in arguing that the packaging was inadequate.

If all else fails consider a you tube video; Dave Carroll is about to rack up 10,000,000 hits with his now famous tale of United and his Guitar
YouTube - United Breaks Guitars

cheers skip

 

[JOC469]

Article 22 - Limits of liability in relation to delay, baggage and cargo - Montreal Convention

1. In the case of damage caused by delay as specified in Article 19 in the carriage of persons, the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to 4,150 Special Drawing Rights.

2. In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination.

3. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the consignor's actual interest in delivery at destination.

4. In the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of part of the cargo, or of any object contained therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the destruction, loss, damage or delay of a part of the cargo, or of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the same air waybill, or the same receipt or, if they were not issued, by the same record preserved by the other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 4, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.

5. The foregoing provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that such servant or agent was acting within the scope of its employment.

6. The limits prescribed in Article 21 and in this Article shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff, including interest. The foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court costs and other expenses of the litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence causing the damage, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later.