Passenger claims for financial compensation for injuries suffered during hijackings are based on Article 17 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention, according to which the carrier is liable for all damages sustained during an accident on board or in the course of embarking and disembarking. Although British courts have not yet handed down a decision on whether hijacking is to be considered an 'accident,' several British judges have voiced their agreement with recent U.S. court decisions. In Husserl v. Swiss Air Transport Co., the American court interpreted the events involving the hijacking of a Swiss airplane by a Palestinian organization as an accident and awarded financial compensation for the plaintiff's physical injuries. The situation is more complicated if the injury occurs in the airport rather than inside the aircraft. Several decisions indicate that the airline is liable if the passenger's movements were under the control of the carrier for the purpose of embarking and disembarking. In Day/Evangelinos v. TWA, the court evaluated this factor according to three criteria: (1) what the passengers were doing when the accident occurred, (2) at whose behest the passengers were acting, and (3) whether their location exposed them to a risk inherent in air travel. Following the Montreal Agreement of 1966, airline companies have no longer been able to plead successfully that they had taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage, as permitted under Article 20(1) of the Warsaw Convention. So far, plaintiffs have been able to recover damages only for bodily injuries and not for mental anguish and psychological trauma experienced during a hijacking.