Widmyer v. Southeast Skyways, Inc.

584 P.2d 1 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D's airplane left Juneau International Airport in good weather. Another pilot observed D's airplane in a parallel flight pattern near Hawk Inlet on Admiralty Island. A heavy snow squall was encountered by both airplanes. Both airplanes were flying at an altitude of 50 to 100 feet. D's airplane executed a turn to the right, away from the Admiralty Island beach, and disappeared from view. It was next sighted at the Strait by Charles and Esther Kaze. The airplane was flying at low altitude, and it crashed a few seconds after they observed it. There was no change in the audible pitch of the motor prior to impact. It was snowing very hard, and visibility was poor. The wreckage was found in a vertical, nose down position in rough tidal water; there were no survivors. P's expert testified that, in his opinion, the crash was due to a 'stall/spin' that he attributed to pilot error. He stated that the pilot also was in violation of Visual Flight Rules (VFR) of the Federal Aviation Administration. Another who observed the airplane testified to his opinion that the pilot had crossed the Chatham Strait, looking for the Chichagof beach, which was not visible from Point Marsden; and that when he encountered the trees, he was forced to pull up and make a sharp turn, which stalled the aircraft. D's evidence focused on inclement weather as a cause of the accident. Its testified that the weather in Southeast Alaska on the day of the crash was unstable; and that, in his opinion, strong and severe turbulence existed in False Bay at the time of the crash. It was established that the pilot was experienced with approximately 3,000 hours of flight. Another expert testified that the craft was struck by an unexpected gust of wind; and that the crash was not due to pilot error. The court refused to give several of P's proposed instructions. Requests for instructions relating to (1) the duty of care imposed on a common carrier; (2) Federal Aviation Administration regulations; (3) the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and (4) the 'act of God' defense were denied. D got the verdict and P appealed.