This paper addresses two issues of liability for the bad behaviour of passengers by air. The first is the liability of the air carrier to “good” passengers for the behaviour of “bad” passengers. The liability of the latter being assumed, the second is whether the “bad” passenger can enforce his liability insurance policy —if he has one. The paper argues that, whether or not there is “host liability” in English tort law, the degree of control that can and sometimes should be exercised by cabin staff on aircraft is such that the carrier is liable under the Warsaw Convention for the injuries inflicted on one passenger by another, if the conduct of the latter could and should have been anticipated by the carrier’s staff. On the second issue, the paper argues that, notwithstanding some broad statements to the contrary in Tinsley v. Milligan the “public conscience” test (or something very much like it) still applies to the enforcement of liability insurance.

“Air rage” conjures up images of anger and commotion. However, bad behaviour also may be slow and silent, although nonetheless outrageous. Moreover, bad behaviour is not confined to “businessmen” and some readers of this Quarterly may be wondering, why us? Indeed, one might have thought that air rage was more likely among those cooped up at the back of the aircraft in “cattle” class. However, the majority of incidents take place in the first class cabin or, at least, what has sometimes been called “business” class.1 Be that as it may, this paper is concerned with bad behaviour of all kinds by air passengers of all kinds.