SUMMER 2015 NEWSLETTER This 50 Years of Service to the Aviation Community
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAIRMAN’S MeSSAGE: Pat EPPS THROWS A WHALE OF A PartY COMPLETE WITH AIRSHOW By Alan Armstrong, Chair he 50th Anniversary of Epps Air Service was celebrated on May 28, 2015, and a huge audience turned out to honor Pat Epps and SUMMER 2015 NEWSLETTER This 50 years of service to the aviation community. Throwing a large party in his main hangar was not enough, since Pat had on hand the B-17, Memphis Belle, as well as the Aeroshell Formation Aerobatic Team. To use the cliché of Ed Sullivan (for those of you who still remember him), “It was a really big INSIDE THIS ISSUE show.” For those of you who drove into the event, you were greeted by marshallers wearing luminescent rain FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK ......................2 suits (the weather was a bit dreary), and flashlights to ensure you safely parked your car. As you made “TOWER, I HAVE A PROBLEM” – your way into the Epps Terminal Building, you EVIDENCE OF PRE-impact FRIGHT ......3 were greeted by Pat Epps and other Epps employees where you obtained your name tag. Then you found PUBLIC FINANCE AND your way into the main Epps hangar which was INTERGOVERNMEntaL practically devoid of aircraft and was filled with a CONTRACTING: FROM staDIUMS large stage with a jumbo-tron screen. Our Master of AND BALLparKS TO YOUR LOCAL Ceremonies was Jack English, an accomplished film MUNICIpaL AIRPOrt .................................7 director and aviation aficionado. Jack summoned Pat to the stage and recounted Pat’s amazing journey as ARE NTSB PROBABLE CAUSE an aviation entrepreneur, explorer and pilot. People REPOrts ADMISSIBLE? ..........................10 who had been a part of Pat’s life also appeared on the stage and gave testimonials. In the midst of this on-stage performance, an airshow was unfolding. DeKalb Peachtree Airport was shut down for the big event. The B-17 named “Memphis Belle” was starting up and being piloted Alan Armstrong, Chair [email protected] Lisa Lenor McCrimmon, Vice Chair [email protected] Charles Keith Wood Jr., Treasurer [email protected] Arthur J. Park, Newsletter Editor [email protected] continued on page 12 Summer 2015 1 FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK by Arthur J. Park hile we all look forward to the Aviation Jan. 20-23, 2016 Law Section’s upcoming seminar, Villas of Grand Cypress, Orlando, Fla. please also keep the following aviation www.alisymposium.com/ Wconferences in mind as you make your plans for • The 49th Annual SMU Air Law Symposium CLE and travel in late 2015 and early 2016: Approx. March 24-25, 2016 • ABA Forum on Air & Space Law, Annual Omni Mandalay Hotel in Las Colinas, Texas Meeting - Sept. 17-18, 2015 http://smulawreview.law.smu.edu/Symposia/Air- Ritz-Carlton, Marina Del Rey, Calif. Law/Symposium-Brochure.aspx www.americanbar.org/groups/air_space.html • 2016 AIA Annual Conference • IATA’s 11th Maintenance Cost Conference & May 19-21, 2016 The World Maintenance Symposium Philadelphia, Penn. Sept. 23-24, 2015 http://convention.aia.org/event/homepage.aspx Miami, Fla. • 15th AIAA Aviation and Aeronautics Forum www.iata.org/events/Pages/index.aspx and Expo - June 13-17, 2016 • ABA Forum on Air & Space Law, Aviation Washington, D.C. Finance - Dec. 3, 2015 www.aiaa.org/research/ New York, N.Y. • EAA AirVenture Oshkosh www.americanbar.org/groups/air_space.html July 25-31, 2016 • Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2016 Oshkosh, Wis. Aviation Law and Insurance Symposium http://tinyurl.com/oppwtwa The Aviatation Law Section Newsletter is MAKE A looking for authors. If you would like to contribute an article or PRO BONO have an idea for content, please contact Arthur Park at PROMIS#probonopromiseE [email protected] 1. Make a 30-second video telling us about your pro bono promise. 2. Post it on Twitter with #probonopromise, @StateBarofGA The opinions expressed within The and @ProBono_GA. Aviation Law Section Newsletter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the State Bar of pro Georgia, the Aviation Law Section, the bono Section’s executive committee or editor of the newsletter. 2 Aviation Law Section Newsletter “TOWER, I HAVE A PROBLEM” – EVIDENCE OF PRE-impact FRIGHT By Anne M. Landrum* cross the country, the states are split on injury and death, “and from these circumstances [the whether to allow recovery for pre-impact factfinder] could extrapolate the probable mental state fright in a civil suit, and this article will give of decedent in that last moment of consciousness.”16 Aa quick overview of some of those decisions. On the The court in Monk noted there was evidence the one hand, damages can be awarded for a decedent’s decedent’s vehicle veered shortly before the crash, pre-impact fright under the laws of many states suggesting he was aware of the impending crash and including Georgia,1 Florida,2 Louisiana,3 and Texas,4 attempted to avoid it.17 provided there is evidence the decedent was aware of In Department of Transportation v. Dupree,18 a 5 his impending injury or death. On the other, several Georgia court held that “for pre-impact pain and 6 7 8 states including Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois and suffering to be awarded, the jury must have some 9 Arkansas have refused to allow any recovery for pre- evidence that the deceased at some point in time impact fright. A number of states remain silent on was conscious of her imminent death; the jury may the issue. For example, in 2012, the South Carolina infer such consciousness from evidence immediately Supreme Court declined to decide whether to allow prior to impact or following her injury.”19 The court 10 recovery for pre-impact fright. in Dupree concluded there was sufficient evidence The decision of the New Jersey court in In re the decedent suffered pre-impact fright before her Jacoby Airplane Crash Litigation,11 which collected automobile accident, reasoning: and analyzed pre-2006 cases from across the United The headlights would have been visible to States allowing or precluding recovery for pre-impact Mrs. Lamb at least 150 feet away from her. Mrs. fright, explained the theory behind such recovery. Lamb would have been able to see the approaching The court in In re Jacoby concluded that the New headlights rounding the curve over 350 feet away and Jersey Supreme Court would find the state’s survivors up to 14 seconds away. Since it would take the van act allowed a decedent’s representative to recover approximately 120 to 180 feet to change lanes, then damages in the same manner as the decedent had he Mrs. Lamb would have had several seconds to realize 12 lived. The court then drew an analogy to recovery her deadly peril as the headlights of the following car by a living person for emotional injury experienced loomed behind the swerving van. Thus, Mrs. Lamb 13 prior to an impact followed by physical injury. would have gone from relief at seeing the van swerve The evidence of pre-impact fright in In re Jacoby away from her to horror at seeing the car’s lights included the pilot’s communication with the tower looming at her in her lane.20 shortly after take-off, where he stated twice, “I have a problem.” The last thirty seconds of radar data In Byrd v. Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC,21 which showed the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of involved a collision between a tractor-trailer and a 2,800 feet and 161 knots of airspeed before beginning passenger van, a Georgia federal court held that the a final descent of approximately 10,000 feet-per- evidence – including dicing injuries from safety glass minute before impacting a chimney on a three-story on the decedent’s left cheek and neck – indicated building, crashing into another three-story building, the decedent was looking straight ahead and never and ultimately breaking apart and coming to a rest turned her head toward the oncoming vehicle, thereby on a street. The total flight time lasted approximately precluding an award of damages for pre-impact fright.22 four to six minutes.14 Georgia allows recovery of damages for a While Georgia courts have not addressed the decedent’s pre-impact fright even when there is no sufficiency of evidence of a decedent’s pre-impact evidence the decedent suffered post-impact conscious fright during an air crash, the decision in Monk v. pain and suffering.23 In Lewis v. D. Hays Trucking, Dial15 established that a factfinder may infer from the Inc.,24 the court held that “[t]he fact of instantaneous evidence that the decedent was aware of his impending death, however, does not always preclude damages for pain and suffering.”25 Discussing the evidence of Summer 2015 3 the decedent’s pre-impact fright, the court in Lewis held that “[p]laintiff responds that it was a clear, dark night and the accident happened on a straight LAWYER ASSISTANCE stretch of road. Therefore, [the decedent] would have been aware of the headlights of the tractor PROGRAM trailer bearing down on her and would have known that the tractor trailer was not stopping.”26 In some cases, the passage of time between commencement of problems in flight and the crash of the aircraft, by itself, is not sufficient evidence of the passengers’ awareness of their impending death. Stress, life challenges In Shu-Tao Lin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,27 the Second Circuit noted that “there was insufficient or substance abuse? evidence to support a finding that a passenger seated on the right side of the plane suffered any pre-impact conscious pain and suffering or that he was even aware of the impending disaster until approximately three 28 We can seconds before the crash.” The Second Circuit then held that, “[i]n contrast, Dr.