Overview of Airport Duties and Standards of Care in Airfield Accident Cases (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 23-44
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
23 The Supreme Court has determined that preemption refers to a legislative act, not a judicial act. It addresses the effect of a legislative decision establishing national law or empowering an administrative agency to take certain national action having the force and effect of law.
|
From page 24... ...
24 B Airport Certification Manual Airport proprietors may prepare a number of plans or manuals that address conditions in the airfield.
|
From page 25... ...
25 an entity." 197 The court also noted that an inspection, or failing to stop activities that do not comply with safety standards, are not acts that impose liability on the government. The court also determined that a "government safety manual or safety program does not impose a special duty on the government" to protect an individual.198 Without such a duty, these general public obligations do not create a particular responsibility to care for an individual and thus cannot support the "duty" element of a negligence action.199 The court noted that not all government acts are "commands which create legal duties or standards, the violation of which involves breaking the law.
|
From page 26... ...
26 E Birds A number of cases have considered liability claims after an aircraft encountered birds near an airport.
|
From page 27... ...
27 under the Airport and Airway Development Act to enforce the proprietor's compliance with the assurances. The federal government argued that even if it had such a duty, it was immune under the FTCA's discretionary function exception.
|
From page 28... ...
28 airport manager, and the air traffic controller on duty and alleged that the suit was subject to admiralty jurisdiction. The Supreme Court determined that admiralty jurisdiction requires a significant relationship between an accident and traditional maritime activity involving navigation and commerce on navigable waters.
|
From page 29... ...
29 false arrest, false imprisonment, or negligence. The court observed that under the FAAct, the "essential field preemption inquiry is whether the density and detail of federal regulation merits the inference that any state regulation within the same field will necessarily interfere with the federal regulatory scheme." 234 In this case, federal regulations made it illegal to interfere with a flight crew and gave the pilot discretion to address emergencies, but the court determined that those regulations vest the "flight crew with authority to fly a plane however they deem necessary to promote safety" and did "not amount to ‘pervasive' regulations of passenger management with respect to Parver's claimed intentional torts alleging injury from the misuse of authority." 235 The court thus determined that claims of false arrest and false imprisonment were not field preempted and remanded the case for a trial on the facts.
|
From page 30... ...
30 Unqualified Pilots In Hendren v. Ken-Mar Airpark, Inc.,249 an inexperienced student pilot took off at night from a foggy uncontrolled airport with a passenger, and the pilot did not have the qualifications for instrument flight (the pilot and passenger also were known to have been drinking)
|
From page 31... ...
31 crew, and the FAA. The case spanned at least 20 reported decisions under the name of In re Air Crash at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Detroit, Michigan, on August 16, 1987, and proceedings continued through at least 1997.
|
From page 32... ...
32 I Multiple Party Issues Aircraft accident cases often involve a variety of plaintiffs and defendants.
|
From page 33... ...
33 airport to purchase insurance. The court determined that in general, contracts must be consistent with existing laws, including the proprietor's ordinances, and thus the pilot was required to purchase the insurance that was required by the ordinance.
|
From page 34... ...
34 mandatory procedures as provided in the airport proprietor's manual approved by the FAA. The FAA also had authority to decommission the facility.
|
From page 35... ...
35 constructed a tower, it had no duty to go beyond the regulatory requirements. "Liability does not arise simply because a local safety regulation or requirement could have been more stringent than FAA requirements." 285 The court also determined that the "airport had no duty to erect a traffic control tower" and that this was "not the legal cause of the injury." 286 In State, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities v.
|
From page 36... ...
36 when an airport proprietor provides tie-down services to small aircraft. In Hill Air of Gadsden, Inc.
|
From page 37... ...
37 supervision, and the conducting of inspections and testing needed for project control," and the FAA does not place its personnel "in the role of providing resident inspection services or issuing construction directions to the sponsor's contractors." 302 After reviewing these FAA materials and the FAA's alleged actions, the court went on to conclude that this state Good Samaritan claim failed because the FAA's actions had not increased a risk to the airline. But the court believed that the FAA's scheduling for air traffic controllers on duty that day required further review.
|
From page 38... ...
38 M Runway and Taxiway Design Some cases allege negligence in designing a runway or other aspects of the airfield that affect flight.
|
From page 39... ...
39 should be progressive, not static, and not the subject of what would amount to a grandfather clause for rental car facilities." 322 It found that this conclusion was also consistent with NCR's lease obligation to "comply with all federal and state laws and regulations," including those concerning airport hazards.323 The court thus denied NCR's motion for summary judgment, but it also would not grant the airline's motion. While the court determined that the revised standard applied, "[u]
|
From page 40... ...
40 court upheld the issuance of an injunction based on arguments that a dangerous incident was substantially likely to occur.
|
From page 41... ...
41 recommendations to the owner and the FAA as they studied the runway, but at the time of the second crash, the short runway remained closed. The court determined that the owner's decision to close the runway was reasonable and that it had immunity for that decision as a discretionary act under the state's immunity laws.
|
From page 42... ...
42 already legally required to perform snow and ice control activities under federal aviation regulations. There can be no such contract, or consideration for a contract, because the legal duty to perform these obligations runs to the public and is a public right.
|
From page 43... ...
43 airport. The case ultimately determined that the construction standard for the light pole that was in effect at the time of its construction provided a standard for its height, but the court also noted that safety concerns are not static.
|
From page 44... ...
44 determined that the FAA did not breach a duty under the FAA Airport Safety Data Program or an airport design circular because the program only required inspections and gave the inspector discretion concerning what to report or classify as a potential hazard. The circular also only described FAA design requirements and did not require the FAA to perform them.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.