I agree Allan L: The
only 'precedent' this case sets is the finding that PSTD is compensable "bodily injury" for the purpose of the Montreal Convention and section 9E of the
Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act (in this case, Commonwealth).
As another example of the distinction between the Court just accepting things as being agreed between the parties versus things being found by the Court, the passage from the judgment I quoted also says:
Pel-Air ... accepted that the crash had been caused by the negligence of the pilot and co-pilot, for which it had vicarious liability.
That's
not the same as a finding that the pilot and co-pilot were negligent. As far as I am aware, there have been no procedings to which the pilot or co-pilot were parties in which they have admitted negligence or been found negligent. (There could be proceedings with this outcome, but I'm not aware of them.)
As to the crew/passenger distinction, my only points were: First, whatever the regulatory definitions and contortions muddying the question whether medical people 'working' on board an aircraft were or are members of the crew rather than passengers, the
patients being carried on board have
always been "passengers" under the civil aviation law. Full stop. Secondly, the current spaghetti of intersecting and interacting definitions don't help much in clarifying the regulatory 'status' of people who aren't licensed aircrew but still have 'jobs' to do on board the aircraft.