You were hurt on a Japan Airlines flight between California and Tokyo, or on a longer journey that routed through it. A treaty governs the claim rather than California negligence law, and the exchange is mostly to your advantage.

Does the Montreal Convention Cover a JAL Flight?

Yes. Japan joined the treaty early, before it entered into force in 2003, and the United States is a party. The treaty governs international carriage between parties, and the test is the itinerary rather than the leg where the injury happened, so a ticket from Los Angeles through Tokyo to Bangkok is international carriage throughout.

The structure is widely misunderstood. Below a threshold the treaty sets, Japan Airlines is not permitted to argue it was not at fault for an injury caused by an accident on board. Above that threshold it can defend itself, and if it fails to prove it took all reasonable measures, there is no cap on what it owes. The figure in the treaty is a floor under your recovery, not a ceiling.

Can You Sue Japan Airlines in California?

Often you can, and it is worth checking rather than assuming Tokyo. The treaty provides a forum at the injured passenger's principal and permanent residence, as long as the airline operates service to or from that place and does business there from premises it or a commercial partner occupies. Several factors decide whether those conditions were satisfied on your trip, including what the carrier was operating to or from California at the time and the presence it kept in the state. We can review the itinerary and tell you where the claim can go. We cover the forum, and when it is unavailable, in suing a foreign airline in California.

An Ownership History Worth Knowing About

This question has a more interesting answer for JAL than for most carriers, and it is one we would rather settle at the start of a case.

Under US law, an airline a foreign government owns or controls can be treated as an arm of that state, which changes the machinery of a case rather than its merits: a judge rather than a jury, and a particular route for serving the airline instead of ordinary means.

JAL's history is unusual here. After its bankruptcy early last decade the airline was restructured with Japanese state-backed investment, and it later relisted on the Tokyo exchange as that investment was unwound. So the answer for JAL has not always been the same answer, which is a good argument for checking the airline's position against a current source rather than carrying an assumption into a case. For a recent flight the relevant question is the ownership position now, and it is a quick one to answer.

Who You Actually Contracted With

JAL runs a transpacific joint venture with its US oneworld partner, so a large share of the California traffic is sold under the American carrier's name and flight number and operated by JAL. The same happens in reverse on the domestic connection.

The treaty distinguishes the airline that sold the ticket from the airline that operated the flight and permits a claim against either. That distinction is worth money, because a US carrier can be sued here without any foreign forum argument. Your boarding pass will not resolve it, since the number on it is often the seller's. The booking confirmation with its operated-by line will.

What injures passengers

Common Injuries on the Tokyo Run, and Which Ones the Treaty Reaches

The California sectors run ten to twelve hours, and both Tokyo airports are connecting hubs into the rest of Asia.

Overhead Bin and Falling Baggage

A bin that opens in flight, or a bag coming down during deplaning. External, and the clearest case the treaty handles.

Hot Liquid and the Service Cart

Scalding tea or coffee, or a cart striking a shoulder in the aisle. The cabin is under service for hours.

Turbulence

An unbelted passenger thrown from a seat. External, and a real risk on the Pacific tracks. Whether the belt sign was on matters.

Jetway and Airstairs Falls

Inside the treaty, because embarking and disembarking are part of the carriage. The jetway and the airstairs both count.

A Fall Inside the Terminal

Outside the treaty. A fall inside Haneda or Narita is a premises claim in Japan, often on a much shorter deadline. Do not let it sit.

Clots, Cardiac Events, and Back Injuries

The hard category. The airline's answer is that your own condition surfaced on an ordinary flight, and it has been difficult to overcome.

Where We Are Not the Right Call

If you live somewhere other than California, the residence forum goes with you and not with your itinerary. If the injury happened in a Tokyo terminal between flights rather than aboard the aircraft or on the jetway, it is a Japanese premises claim against the airport and outside the treaty. If two years have elapsed since the aircraft landed, assume the claim is gone and let us tell you quickly rather than slowly. And a suitcase claim is a form in the airline's own system, filed inside a notice window measured in days.

What to Do This Week

One. Pull the booking confirmation and identify the selling carrier. If the US partner sold the ticket, your case may be considerably simpler than you expect.

Two. Write out the sequence, with the external event at the center of it and the crew interaction recorded.

Three. See a doctor now. Delay is the single most common weakness in these files.

Four. Put two years from the landing date on the calendar and treat it as fixed.

If you live in California, something external injured you on the aircraft, and you are inside two years, this claim is workable. We evaluate them at no cost, and we will say so plainly if what happened does not meet the treaty's accident standard.