1999 EAA judgement overturned finally

[Dave Krall CFII]

This is good news, but it shouldn't have cost so much to get it.
I'm sorry for the family's losses but it's not EAA's problem, and I hope they go after and recoup expenses for the whole legal scenario that they were dragged through to defend themselves against one individual's negilgence and incompetence.

Succumbing to these types of lawsuits prematurly as many others have, has been a significant factor in the artificially high cost of GA for many decades, that we all end up paying for. The EAA fighting this case is a precedent that should be continued by others in similar cases until the motive is no longer there.

The $10.5 million judgement against EAA has been overturned.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=40416fa1-9246-46f9-8ff1-a5e761defafa&

 

[KennyFlys]

How the heck did they come up with such an idiot jury???

The ban on use of EAA's name in fly-ins was evident in Gainesville, Georgia. But oddly, they call it the "Cracker Fly-In." I have no clue how that name was arrived at.

 

[AdamZ]

As an attorney I'm please with the decision of the Appellate Court. Don't think that decision dosen't enter into my mind as to Gastons, The FlyBQ and 6Y9er.

 

[ScottM]

they call it the "Cracker Fly-In." I have no clue how that name was arrived at.

i think you needed some winkies with that statement!

 

[poadeleted20]

How the heck did they come up with such an idiot jury???

That's easy -- they grabbed the first twelve bozos they could drag in off the street. What's hard to figure is how the trial judge let it get that far by not granting as a matter of law (just as the appellate court did now) the original summary dismissal motion by NWEAA and EAA along with that of the City of Arlington.

 

[AdamZ]

Well from a purely legal perspective I think the plaintiff did have enough to get past the summary judgment burden but not liability by a perponderance of the evidence.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Obviously the average jury is beyond stupid. How to fix? Some sort of jury training before they are allowed to serve?
That this continues unchecked makes me crazy.

 

[wanttaja]

How the heck did they come up with such an idiot jury???

Well, you might read what the case was actually about. The lawsuit didn't blame Arlington for the crash, it claimed that the response to the crash should have been faster.

... Mr. Corbitt’s airplane took off at a steep climb, but banked sharply to the left and crashed. Almost immediately after the crash, the plane burst into flames. As the fire grew, bystanders attempted to extinguish it with handheld fire extinguishers. Several bystanders testified that when they arrived, Mr. Corbitt was alive, conscious, and asking for help. As they awaited fire fighting aid, the bystanders attempted to pull Mr. Corbitt from the wreckage, but he was pinned by the plane. An Arlington Fire Department truck was parked approximately 2,000 feet from the crash site. The record indicates the fire crew arrived somewhere between 3 to 5 minutes after the crash. "

Three to five minutes to travel 2,000 feet. For a fire truck standing by just prior to the start of a low-level aerobatic airshow. I spoke to a witness with an EMT background. He felt the truck approached too slowly.

I agree with the result of the appeal; I don't see this as the fault of the fly-in or EAA. But I have been, quite frankly, blown away by my fellow pilots' reaction to this. The usual reaction is, "He screwed up and paid for it...serves him right!"

My friends, NOBODY deserves to burn alive.

Considering the circumstances of the crash, I don't fault the widow for suing. I suspect the primary target was the fire department (e.g. the city), bit they were dismissed early. Given the facts as outlined in the Appeals Court decision, I'm not surprised the jury felt that the response to the accident was slow. Sadly, by that point, only EAA and the Fly-In remained as defendants.

My guess is that this wasn't a "lawsuit lottery" award by the jury. The pilot had retired ten years earlier at the age of 37. I'd suspect that no one in the jury box felt that the widow needed a big lump of cash to keep her from the poor farm. Also, recall that the pilot was flying a "home-made airplane," another fact not likely to gain sympathy from a typical jury.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[KennyFlys]

Ron, I'm not at all unsympathetic to the man and his family. It's a sad loss, particularly when there were people who tried to help and were incapable.

I don't believe the EAA should be liable for any part. One unanswered question I have is did the city or the airport authority require on-site emergency medical and fire assistance? Was it a condition of a permit to allow the fly-in? If so, the city probably should be liable.

The flip side is this could have happen on any given day this man flew. It didn't have to be the fly-in. However, at the few EAA associated fly-ins I've been to... I've seen some of the worst show offs in general aviation, some of them including unnecessary steep climbs from a small, experimental aircraft. Even a short field departure doesn't remain steep for long. So, I have a problem placing much blame beyond the pilot's actions. Sorry, that's how I feel.

 

[poadeleted20]

For whatever reason, the city was dismissed as a defendant on a summary motion early in the process. It appears the jury felt somebody should pay, and without the city to soak, took it out of the only remaining defendants without regard for the law, and that's what the appeals court overturned. Sitting here now and saying the city should have been found liable is legally pointless.

 

[wanttaja]

Ron, I'm not at all unsympathetic to the man and his family. It's a sad loss, particularly when there were people who tried to help and were incapable.

I don't believe the EAA should be liable for any part. One unanswered question I have is did the city or the airport authority require on-site emergency medical and fire assistance? Was it a condition of a permit to allow the fly-in? If so, the city probably should be liable.

From Page 4 of the Appeals Court Decision:

"Since 1997, NWEAA has entered into a General Special Use Agreement and Special Event Use Agreement with the City of Arlington regarding its use of the Municipal Airport for the Fly-In... Section five listed as a condition that: The permittee shall be required each year to negotiate and reduce to writing agreement with the Arlington Fire Department for Event Fire Service..."

Like you, I tend to point the blame at the city, but the city got out of the case fairly early:

"In June of 2004, the City of Arlington moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to Mr. Corbitt under the public duty doctrine."

(Page 6 of the judgment)

At that point, only the Fly-In and the EAA remained as defendants, so when the case was decided in favor of the plaintiff, the good guys got stuck with the bill.

The flip side is this could have happen on any given day this man flew. It didn't have to be the fly-in. However, at the few EAA associated fly-ins I've been to... I've seen some of the worst show offs in general aviation, some of them including unnecessary steep climbs from a small, experimental aircraft. Even a short field departure doesn't remain steep for long. So, I have a problem placing much blame beyond the pilot's actions. Sorry, that's how I feel.

I can't argue with that; the crash was certainly the pilot's fault. But if the pilot had been rescued alive but given tainted blood during a transfusion, should the hospital be excused from legal responsibility because the crash was the pilot's fault?

This case revolves around the promptness of the rescue response, not the cause of the crash itself. The trouble is, it's somehow gotten around that the original jury ruled that the Fly-In was responsible for the crash itself. That just isn't true.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flyingcheesehead]

However, at the few EAA associated fly-ins I've been to... I've seen some of the worst show offs in general aviation, some of them including unnecessary steep climbs from a small, experimental aircraft.

A-freakin'-men to that. I see this crap at Oshkosh every year. For example, some big dumb idiot in an overpowered homebuilt taking off on 27 and climbing for all he's worth at an insane angle, but quickly pulling and pushing on the stick the entire time, making his engine make nasty noises as the plane does the sideways fish-swimming motion right up through the path of the airplanes on the arrival to 27.

If I'd have been in the tower that day, I do believe I would have said "Hey dumbass, did you not read where it says 'maintain 1800 feet or below until clear of the class D airspace?'" Every time I see someone in a pink shirt at OSH, I have this urge to not only thank them for their excellent work, but to apologize for of all the idiots they have to deal with.