Hail Ants
I realize the plane was set to come down one way or another. But at the time of her landing she did have some power. I don’t want to get hung up on semantics about what “falling out of the sky” means, because I understand your point.
and, re:
Do you have a cite for that? I don’t doubt that it’s true but I’d like to see the numbers.
And from those two cites you deduce that I don’t know what I’m talking about? Tell me (precisely) where I’m wrong or don’t complain about my cites. If you want clarification of a point, I will be happy to provide it.
Facts are always distinguishable. But the basics of tort law are remarkably consistent from state to state, and Georgia is not an exception to this rule.
Since you asked, yes. Tort liability requires both cause-in-fact and proximate cause (sometimes called “legal cause”), which your mnemonic combines into simple “causation.” That’s a minor quibble and irrelevent to the OP, which is why I didn’t point it out in the first place.
I only suggested that the law was not complex. Applying the facts to the law is, of course, the complexity here.
Not bloody likely. This is a very fact-based problem, and the facts we have are quite sketchy. It would probably take at least two or three full days of trial to enable a jury to make an informed decision. But feel free to make a snap judgment, if you wish.
I never said a judge would dismiss the pilot, or that she wouldn’t be sued. What I did say is that she is not automatically liable merely because she was piloting the aircraft.
Yes. You complained about my lack of citations, thereby implying that I don’t know what I’m talking about, without even bothering to contest any of my statements of the law.
Bad vibes, bad vibes. . .
This has been a surprisingly nasty debate from the start, and it ain’t getting any kinder. Oh well, on to the arguments.
mouthbreather, while I sympathize with your antipathy towards msmith and his tone towards you, (s)he makes a valid point here. In the first place, there are many of us (utilitarian-types mostly) who don’t believe that we lock people up just because they have committed a crime (not that I think our pilot here has done so). We believe that people are locked up in order to serve some actual good (e.g. to get rapists of off the street, or to deter criminals or others from committing crime). If no good is to be had by putting someone in jail, than it shouldn’t be done. I see no way in which holding this pilot criminally liable helps anything.
Of course, you don’t strike me as accepting of this viewpoint. No, you strikes me as “lock 'em up just because of past offences” type of guy. Well, ok. Kant happened to agree with you, if that makes you feel better. We’ll argue (for the moment) based on the assumption that you and Kant are right.
Do you really feel that she committed an offence? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember you once suggesting that she should have landed in the trees. If she had only two choices (trees or highway), was put into the position of having to choose through no fault of her own, and she made the right choice, how can she be criminally liable for said choice? Please explain.
But perhaps you have a problem with how she chose to land (fuel on, wheels up). I see no reason to doubt Ravendriver’s assessment that turning the fuel off would not have measurably reduced the risk, but landing wheels up may have. It is, however, a judgement call. Assuming a rational decision on the pilot’s part, she decided it would be safer to trade stability while landing (wheels up) for control w/o sparks on the ground (wheels down). Either decision poses certain risks to both the pilot and those on the ground, and I don’t think that it’s obvious at all which was the right decision. However, so long as she was trying to reduce the risk involved, that is actively trying to not hurt anyone, I don’t see how she can be held criminally liable.
I’ve heard nothing that would suggest to me that her intentions were less than honorable or that her actions were at all negligent or reckless. It is entirely reasonable for the legal system to require at least one of the above aspects (negligence, recklessness, or malice) for an action to be criminal. If you disagree, please explain why.
Why are people so quick and ready to assume that SOMEONE is to blame for this? Second-guess this, second-guess that, sheesh. I’ve got a bit of aviation knowledge myself, and it seems to me that the pilot did the best that could be done in the situation, with the information available the time. How can you ask for anything more than the best possible solution? Yes, there are other options that might have worked out better, but the option chosen was the one that had the least overall risk. Even the least risk is still greater than zero, and the dice rolled against it this time. Yes, it sucks, but these things happen. Life is not a fairy tale, don’t expect it to be.
What’s called for here is sympathy, not petty recrimination.
Excellent post, VarlosZ. I’ll try to address your points.
bolding mine
I may be way of base here, but I am under the opinion that you should be held accountable for the results of your choices, not the choices themselves.
For instance, I can be driving my car. Assume that my breaks go out on me. Now, there is a sharp curve coming up, and there’s no way I can make the turn at my rate of speed. I see a long, uphill driveway before the curve, and since I don’t want to go flying off the road, I decide to take the driveway in an attempt to get my car to a stop. Now, if I manage to get my car stopped, without any damage to anything else at all, Then all is well. In overly simplistic terms, “no harm, no foul”. But assume that in that same situation, I plow into a parked car in that driveway. Driver (IMO) should be liable.
Looking at both scenarios, I don’t think anyone (including myself) would fault the driver for the CHOICE to go up the driveway. It all comes back to the result of the choice.
The more I have thought about this, the more I think it’s possible that no criminal charges should be brought up against her. Civil charges, absolutely. I’m still riding the fence on criminal charges though. Here’s the way I see it – If one person has to die in the story from the OP, and I had any control over the situation, 100 times out of 100 it would be the pilot, not the driver. I guess this just violates my sense of what is just and what isn’t, and I need to reconcile that in my head somehow. I do agree with all viewpoints that locking her up is not going to help society or help rehabilitate her (not that I think she needs any rehabilitation). But it still doesn’t sit right with me that she is without fault while another innocent person is dead.
This may just be a large instance of “Life ain’t fair, get over it”.
I’m still thinking about it.
I’ve read this thing over and some points seem relevant to me-
Up there, somewhere, a pilot suggested that this person was doing scut work and was very likely doing this job to get hours to qualify for a better job- I have to say 'ok, guy is in the biz and most likel knows what he’s talking about, I’ll take him at his word"
Given that, we then have a pilot who while not a bad or necessarily negligent pilot, might be one who is not the most experienced. This in no way reflects on her or the situation
Given that it was rush hour traffic, and she managed to find a spot clear enough that the damage was as low as it was, I would say that she had done the very best, despite the situation, to see that no one got hurt.
I mean one death resulting from a plane landing in rush hour traffic? On the face of it, she showed a large degree of concern for and effort towards others when her life was in danger.
The fact that she didn’t follow every procedure in the manual, I think, is very understandable, and doesn’t prove negligence on her part.
I also think the analogy to the pilot crashing at the airport with half of his passengers not surviving despite his best efforts is very germane to this situation. The only big difference is the cargo and number of deaths- both were in bad situations, both did their best, on both cases, people died, in both cases, people survived.
My .02- She is in no way responsible. If, on the other hand, she was cavalier about the whole thing, then I have issues. But, as I hope I show in my arguments above, she seems to have done the very best she could to minimize danger to herself and others. In other words, she is a conscientious person, as shown by her actions.
Ya got a job, trying to make a living. Something beyond your control goes very wrong. Despite your very best efforts, someone dies.
No, not responsible. Not even if it was a recreational situation instead of a work situation. To me, the key concepts are ‘beyond your control’ and ‘very best efforts’.
I think MINTY is correct in his assessment that the pilot is not negligent as a matter of law just because she is flying the plane. But apparently he is not necessarily correct in asserting that "no negligence = no liability.
Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which MINTY has cited several times, owners and operators of aircraft are to be held STRICTLY LIABLE for damages sustained on the ground. Now, it is true that this rationale is based on the outdated theory that aviation is an unreasonably dangerous activity, and it is true that a few jurisdictions have declined to apply it and said instead, as MINTY says, that general negligence principles should apply, but it is still law, at least insofar as the Restatement is concerned. (For anyone who cares, the exact citations is the Restatment (Second) of Torts sec. 520A.) We can’t know for sure that “no negligence = no liability” in this case, because we don’t know if Georgia would accept or reject the old “strict liability” standard.
In addition, there is apparently some question as to the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitir (“the thing speaks for itself”), on the grounds that planes do not just fall from the sky unless someone has committed negligence somewhere, be it in piloting or maintainence. Application of this doctrine would mean that the plaintiff would not have to show that the pilot was negligent; rather, it would be up to the pilot to show that she was not negligent. Again, the application of this doctrine is not universally accepted, but it ought to at least be acknowledged that it exists and might apply. (For anyone who cares, citations on aircraft-to-object-on-ground collisions may be found in Strict Liability In Absence Of Statute, For Injury Or Damage Occurring On The Ground Caused By Ascent, Descent, Or Flight Of Aircraft, 73 ALR 4th 416; and Res Ipsa Loquitir In Aviation Accidents ALR 4th 1237.)
So while general principles of negligence might apply – and my guess is probably will, given the advances in aviation safety – they still might not.
Since Jodi was kind enough to post both here and in the other thread, I just wanted to take the chance to respond here too.
On section 520A, Jodi came up with some pretty solid authority. Thanks again! I am surprised that the Restatement would have adopted this rule, even 35 years ago, and I’m far from certain that the “unreasonably dangerous” rationale for would carry much water these days. The only semi-recent cite I have found for section 520A is Crosby v. Cox Aircraft Co. of Washington, 746 P.2d 1198 (Wash. 1987), which rejects the rule and adopts a negligence standard. As far as I could tell (with limited research sources), Georgia courts have not ruled on the issue.
As for res ipsa loquitur, I really don’t think it would apply in this case, at least against the pilot. Res ipsa is a theory that in certain cases, it is appropriate to infer negligence even without any evidence of what caused an injury to occur. In some jurisdictions it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to negate negligence, while in others it just allows the jury to infer negligence if they feel like it.
Res ipsa requires three elements: 1) The accident is of a type that wouldn’t ordinarily happen without negligence. 2) The instrumentality that caused the injury must have been in the exclusive control of the defendant. 3) The plaintiff played no role in the accident.
#2 is the sticking point for me here. We already know that the primary cause of the crash landing was engine failure, and the engine was most likely in the control of people other than the pilot, which negates the “exclusive control” requirement. If anything, the engine was most likely in the exclusive control of the mechanic.
In addition, my impression of res ipsa loquitur has always been that the plaintiff only gets the jury instruction when there’s no good evidence of what caused the accident–if the jury already has enough information, the judge will just let them work it our for themselves without giving a res ipsa instruction. If anyone actually wants to know what maked the plaintiff entitled to the instruction, I’ll try to find out tomorrow.
I wish I had spotted this thread sooner. I am a pilot and the first thing I look at is the NTSB’s determination of a probable cause. It appears that the NTSB did not fault the pilot in this accident. Although the repost mentions mistakes that she made and possible improper maintainance procedures, this is there probable cause:
Note that they didn’t say that the pilot made a poor choice in picking the interstate, they said that there wasn’t a good choice. The interstate was probably bordered densely by houses, businesses, telephone poles, and all sorts of other hazards. An attempted landing anywhere but the interstate would likely have caused significant loss of life.
My flight instructor always said that roads are one of the worst places to attempt a forced landing. Any other large parcel of flat terrian is preferable. In America’s Dairyland, where I live, a nice farmers field is almost always within gliding distance. This is not the case in the sprawl surrounding Atlanta.
The pilot’s failure to properly configure the aircraft for an emergency landing was a mistake. However, I don’t think, and apparently neither does the NTSB, that this omission had any effect on the severity of the accident.
The primary cause of the accident was an engine failure. The pilot is responsible for determining the air worthiness of an aircraft before every flight. But beyond ensuring that the engine has had all of it’s schedualed maintainance, there isn’t much a pilot can do in this department.
It appears that the there was a conflict between the engine overhaul procedure and a manditory service bulletin sent out by the engine manufacturer that may have resulted in the engine failure. Assigning blame here may not be possible.
The instrumentality that caused the injury was the plane, not the engine, and at the time of the accident it pretty clearly was in the exclusive control of the defendant, since it was up in the air. I’m not quarrelling with the conclusion regarding res ipsa loquitir, just with the assumption that the “instrumentality” was only a part of the plane as opposed to the entire plane (too narrow a definition of “instrument”) and that the mechanic had exclusive control of the engine (not consistent with the generally accepted precept that a person in sole possession of a thing is presumed to have control over that thing).
Even if you consider that the entire airplane was the instrumentality, it still probably wasn’t within the exclusive control of the pilot, since other people were most likely responsible for its maintenance and general upkeep. It’s not enough that the pilot had exclusive control of the airplane just prior to the crash, unless the plaintiff has evidence showing that nobody else’s negligence could have contributed to the crash.
Marathon Oil Co. v. Sterner, 632 S.W.2d 571, 573-74 (Tex. 1982) (holding that a res ipsa loquitur instruction was improper when it was “at least as probable” that an unexplained release of poisonous gas was the result of a maintenance company’s negligence as it was that the defendant oil company’s negligence caused the release). But if there is sufficient evidence that the jury could reasonably eliminate other causes, it seems to be within the sound discretion of the trial judge to decide whether to give a res ipsa instruction. E.g., Mobil Chem. Co. v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245, 256 (Tex. 1974).
There are a half dozen Texas Court of Appeals cases saying that a plaintiff simply can’t get a res ipsa instruction if the evidence conclusively establishes the cause of the accident. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores v. Lerma. 749 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. App. 1988). We pretty clearly know the causes of the accident here: the NTSB report has the source of the engine failure nailed down, and the pilot chose (whether negligently or not) to land the plane on the highway. If Georgia law is similar, that’s another reason to believe res ipsa won’t fly here. (Pun intended.)
So, any Georgia lawyers in here?
::looks around::
Guess we’ll just have to live with Texas law for the moment. 
BTW, love your sig line, Jodi.
Kmart Corporation v. Larsen, 522 S.E.2d 763 (Ga.App.,1999)
(woman injured by falling merchandise while employee was adjusting shelf)
Noble v. Nieznany, 521 S.E.2d 472 (Ga.App.,1999)
(Co-owners of boat that was destroyed in fire sued houseboat owner, alleging that fire resulted from houseboat owner’s negligence in maintaining houseboat. The Superior Court, Douglas County, Emerson, J., granted summary judgment to houseboat owner. Co-owners appealed. The Court of Appeals, Barnes, J., held that: (1) there was no evidence that houseboat owner failed to exercise ordinary care, and (2) res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply.)
Sorry, couldn’t find anything specifically about planes conducting emergency landings in GA, however:
How about some statutory language:
GA St. 6-2-8
Proof of injury to persons or property on ground deemed prima-facie evidence of negligence.
See also:
Res ipsa loquitur in aviation accidents, 6 ALR2d 528
Negligence in operation of airplane in landing, 74 ALR2d 628
Res ipsa loquitur in aviation accidents, 25 ALR4th 1237
I hope that this will help fill in any problems about not haveing any GA case law or statutes to draw inferences from.
Score! Ah, for the days of yesteryear when I was a student and had free access to Westlaw and Lexis. Thanks, Xgemina!
For any non-lawyers in the audience “prima facie evidence” means (roughly) evidence that is good enough to get you to the jury on the issue. It’s not conclusive, however, so our pilot would still get the chance to disprove any negligence on her part. And I also thing that this prima facie evidence statute eliminates the possibility of strict liability for airplanes falling out of the sky in Georgia, since it clearly requires negligence (even if it’s only a presumption of negligence) as a precursor to liability.