Hall v. Osell
| Decision Date | 15 March 1951 |
| Citation | 228 P.2d 293,102 Cal.App.2d 849 |
| Parties | HALL v. OSELL Civ. 4068. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
W. E. James, Bakersfield, for appellant.
Dorsey, Campbell & Bultman, Bakersfield, for respondent.
Action for damages for destruction of an aircraft.
Plaintiff operated a 'for hire' flying service based at the Kern County airport near Bakersfield. During the early morning of June 19, 1947, the defendant hired one of plaintiff's aircraft for the purpose of flying that day from Bakersfield to Santa Barbara, via Santa Maria, and return to Bakersfield.
The defendant, with his wife and daughter as passengers, 'took off' from the Kern county airport for Santa Maria at approximately 11:30 a. m. and proceeded directly to the vicinity of Santa Maria, where, while the defendant was preparing to land, he flew the aircraft into a fog or cloud bank, and in attempting to make a turn, crashed it into a hillside approximately ten miles southwesterly from Santa Maria. The aircraft was destroyed by the crash and plaintiff filed the instant action for damages sustained by reason of its destruction.
The cause was tried by the court without a jury and a judgment rendered for the defendant.
Plaintiff appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings and judgment.
The complaint sets forth four causes of action based on the liability of defendant as a bailee. The answer consists of a general denial and three special defenses in which contributory negligence and 'unavoidable accident' are alleged.
Facts.
Defendant, who held a private pilot's license to fly a plane by 'contact' rules only, arrived at the airport with his wife and daughter at about 7:00 o'clock a. m. on the day of the accident. He inquired as to the weather conditions and was told at the local United States weather bureau that the weather conditions over Santa Maria 'would not allow flying.' While waiting for a further weather report, defendant took his daughter and her girl friend up in the airplane for a ten minute local flight in the vicinity of the airport. During this flight, the aircraft performed satisfactorily, and defendant had no difficulty with it. At about 11:30 o'clock a. m., he obtained a clearance from the weather bureau for his flight and was informed that there was a broken cluster of clouds over Santa Maria, with a ceiling of about 1,300 feet. Defendant was then instructed by Mr. Webber, plaintiff's agent in charge of the airplane, that if the ceiling at Santa Maria was 1,300 feet or above, defendant should then proceed to the ocean, underneath the overcast, and thence follow the coast line to Santa Barbara; or, if the ceiling was less than 1,300 feet at Santa Maria, to land there and get further weather data and instructions before proceeding to Santa Barbara; or, if the weather at Santa Maria 'was too bad', to come back. Webber made a pre-flight inspection of the 'whole' plane, after which he started it and defendant, with his wife and daughter, 'took off'. Defendant climbed to an elevation of about 8,000 feet, during which the airplane performed satisfactorily and gave him no trouble. After he passed over the range of mountains between the airport and Santa Maria, he idled the plane and glided down. When he approached Santa Maria, he could see scattered clouds and a fog bank to the south and west. At an altitude of approximately 1,500 feet, he sighted the airport to his left and started to land. He testified that when he started down to land, he went through a 'big space' in the broken clouds and in the process of losing altitude, this cloud came in, 'involving' the plane, confronting him 'like a wave in the ocean.' His altitude at that time was approximately 800 feet. He attempted to make a 180 degree turn, pushed the throttle in to get all the power possible, and nosed the plane up, and in less than five seconds the plane struck the hillside, at an elevation of somewhere between 1,000 and 1,300 feet.
The defendant testified that after It is this testimony upon which the defendant relied and upon which the trial court concluded that the accident was due, in part at least, to a mechanical failure of the aircraft involved. This evidence is, at best, a statement of the witness as to his feeling at a time when he was obviously involved in a very predicament and he may well have felt under the circumstances that the plane did not respond sufficiently in the emergency. However, the record shows that in a matter of five seconds the plane actually was elevated at least 200 feet after being 'nosed up' and while traveling at a speed of approximately 125 miles per hour, and there is no showing that it was not performing properly for such an aircraft.
The record further shows that the defendant was by his license, limited to contact flying, which was defined as flying with reference to points on the ground; that he was familiar with the rules and regulations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contreras v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...hire must use at least ordinary care for the preservation of the thing deposited." Cal. Civ.Code § 1852 ; see also Hall v. Osell, 102 Cal.App.2d 849, 228 P.2d 293, 295 (1951). Generally, causation is a question of fact reserved for the jury unless no reasonable juror would dispute its absen......
-
Abbott Kinney Co. v. City of Los Angeles
...People v. Headless, 18 Cal.2d 266, 267, 115 P.2d 427; Herbert v. Lankershim, 9 Cal.2d 409, 471-472, 71 P.2d 220; Hall v. Osell, 102 Cal.App.2d 849, 853, 228 P.2d 293; In re Estate of Teed, 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644, 247 P.2d 54. This is one of those occasions. On a parity with the Kinney test......
-
Zirbes v. Stratton
...to permit the trial court to set aside a default. (Id., at pp. 614-615, 301 P.2d 426.) Neither is this case like Hall v. Osell (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 849, 852-853, 228 P.2d 293, also cited by appellant, wherein the only evidence to support the judgment was the testimony of the defendant who ......
-
Martin School of Aviation v. Bank of America Nat. and Sav. Ass'n
...any court of justice is bound by mere swearing. It is swearing creditably that is to conclude its judgment."''' Hall v. Osell, 102 Cal.App.2d 849, 853, 228 P.2d 293, 296. 'While it is true that 'the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal if the record discloses substant......