Can a Carrier Reject a Complaint by Explaining That Another Entity Is To Blame for Traffic Disruptions?
The case may be that, due to train delay or cancellation, a Passenger incurs additional costs, sometimes significant ones, for example, the necessity to stay the night in a hotel or the loss of a flight connection. Principles of the operator’s liability in such cases are worth learning. You are welcome to read them.
Passengers try to claim reimbursement of the incurred costs from the railway carrier. Sometimes an operator refuses to acknowledge such claims, justifying it with the fact that another entity is to be blamed for the disruption to traffic, e.g. a railway infrastructure manager. In the light of liability principles arising from the Civil Code, such reasoning is not always right.
When Can a Carrier Evade Responsibility?
In a case where a Passenger suffered loss due to a train delay or cancellation, the provisions of the Civil Code shall apply; Article 471 of the Civil Code provides that “A debtor is obliged to remedy the loss arising from their failure to perform or improper performance of their liability, unless the failure to perform or improper performance is a consequence of circumstances beyond the debtor’s control.”
It follows from this provision that the operators would have the option of evading meeting the Passengers’ claims, for example, when the reason for a train delay has been an accident on a level crossing caused by the driver’s mistake or when a delay has resulted from difficult weather conditions.
Defect of Infrastructure vs. a Carrier’s Liability
The fact that a carrier has not had a direct impact on causing a delay does not always mean that the carrier will be exempted from the obligation to pay the costs incurred by a Passenger. Article 474 of the Civil Code provides that “A debtor is liable for actions and omission of the persons with the assistance of whom an obligation is performed as for their own action or omission, as well as for the people to whom they entrust the performance. This provision applies also in the event when an obligation is performed by the statutory representative of a debtor”.
In the case of rail transport, this means that if a loss occurs as a result of any action of the infrastructure manager or any other cooperating entity for which this entity is liable (for example, when there is a failure of railway traffic control equipment), the carrier may not evade liability. An infrastructure manager should be deemed to be one of the entities cooperating with the carrier referred to in this provision. This is also confirmed by the fact that the passenger has an option to file a complaint only to the entity with which they executed a transport contract. The carrier, having remedied the Passenger’s loss, may pursue recourse claims to entities with which they have cooperated, e.g. the infrastructure manager.
Determining the Liable Entity
A passenger filing a complaint may not know who is responsible for an inconvenience and whether the break in traffic has been caused by a storm or a technical failure. Determining this, however, is not difficult; carriers have access to a dispatching system which collects information on deviations from the timetables with reasons underlying potential delays. When a case is directed to the Ombudsman or to court, verification of reasons for irregularities usually does not pose any problems.
Remedy to a Loss vs. Compensation for a Delay
An obligation to remedy losses suffered by Passengers due to delay or cancelling of a train is independent of the compensation due for the delay pursuant to the provisions of the Regulation (EC) No 1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations – a carrier in a long-distance and international service is obliged to reimburse 25% of the ticket costs when the delay is within the range of 60-119 minutes to a passenger or 50% when the delay is 120 minutes or more. In this case, the reason for the delay does not matter, and refusal to pay may take place only when the compensation amount would be lower than an equivalent of EUR 4.00.