Overview of Airport Duties and Standards of Care in Airfield Accident Cases (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 7-17
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 7... ...
7 For example, if the lawsuit determines that an accident was caused by the negligence of more than one defendant, then the court must decide under state law how to apportion liability between the parties that contributed to the accident. Normally that issue is submitted to a jury to decide a percentage of liability that each such defendant must bear.
|
From page 8... ...
8 Some states no longer strictly adhere to this "status" approach when considering premises liability. Instead, they typically find that landowners have a common duty to act reasonably or with ordinary care and skill under the circumstances to avoid the risk of injuring others who might foreseeably be harmed.
|
From page 9... ...
9 Common law cases often discuss whether a landowner has a "duty to warn" of conditions on the property that might create a risk. The court considered such a duty in the New Haven case.
|
From page 10... ...
10 proprietor had breached a duty of care that the proprietor owed because the pilot had been a business invitee on the premises. But the court determined that, even assuming the pilot was initially a business invitee, the proprietor's duty as a landowner ended when the pilot successfully left the property.
|
From page 11... ...
11 incidents in the garage "had established a pattern of violent crimes in the airport garage, that would not be dispositive of a pattern of crime at the airport pick-up drive." 49 It observed that "[t] he kind of knowledge required before a duty to protect arises is knowledge from past experience that there is a likelihood of conduct which poses a danger to the safety of patrons." 50 The court determined that "[c]
|
From page 12... ...
12 the crash of the airplanes was within the class of foreseeable hazards resulting from negligently performed security screening. While it may be true that terrorists had not before deliberately flown airplanes into buildings, the airlines reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should hijackers take control of a plane." 63 Next the court considered whether any federal laws preempted a common law duty for the airlines or security companies.
|
From page 13... ...
13 when the intentional or criminal intervention of a third party or parties is reasonably foreseeable." 77 The court discussed other aspects of duty as well in other proceedings. For example, it determined that American Airlines did not undertake any duties toward the passengers on a United Airlines flight because "American could not reasonably have foreseen that any breach it may have committed that led to the crash of an American Airlines airplane would have also led to injures from a crash of a United Airlines airplane." 78 The court also noted that "a generalized duty of all airlines and all aviation personnel to report aviation threats to federal authorities does not establish under these circumstances a duty of one airline to those injured by another airline's crash." 79 In another proceeding, the court determined that United Airlines did not have a duty of care toward the owner of a building that fell after it was hit by debris from the American Airlines crash.80 The court determined that it "was not within United's range of apprehension that terrorists would slip through the PWM [Portland, Maine]
|
From page 14... ...
14 even when an immunity statute does not.85 Through these doctrines the courts address obligations that run to the public rather than to an individual, and a negligence action cannot be based on a public duty.86 Courts have identified a number of circumstances where a government action fulfills an obligation to the public and thus cannot support a negligence action. For example, when the government adopts a program, such as establishing a police force, it normally is taking an action for the general public welfare and not to protect particular persons.87 Courts also might find that government inspections are conducted to fulfill a legal obligation to the public as a whole.
|
From page 15... ...
15 such, the public duties imposed by federal aviation law inure to the benefit of the public, and the courts do not construe them as providing a private right of action to a particular individual. Court discussions concerning public duties can vary from state to state, but public duty concepts might provide an airport proprietor with an important defense in an aircraft accident case.
|
From page 16... ...
16 crew to the craft's owner, operator, or pilot. The duties of the FAA supplement rather than supplant the duties of the airline -- duties which the airline could not, and did not, delegate." 100 Thus, whether under the common law or due to federal mandates, some duties in an aircraft accident case might not be delegable or attributable to other parties, whether based on conduct or through contracts.101 F
|
From page 17... ...
17 discretionary function exception was intended to "prevent judicial ‘second guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort." 111 The courts then established principles concerning the FAA's air traffic control operations. First, the Supreme Court in Indian Towing Company, Inc.
|
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.