Kroon v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 77-127-Orl-Civ-Y.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-127-Orl-Civ-Y.,77-127-Orl-Civ-Y.
• Citation: 465 F. Supp. 1223
• Parties: John H. KROON, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

465 F. Supp. 1223

John H. KROON, Plaintiff, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida, Defendant.

No. 77-127-Orl-Civ-Y.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Orlando Division.

February 27, 1979.

Richard L. Martens, West Palm Beach, Fla., for plaintiff.

John M. Murray, Miami, Fla., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE C. YOUNG, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff, John Kroon, filed this suit against the defendant Beech Aircraft Corporation seeking damages for the destruction of a Beech 95-C55 aircraft manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff on July 7th, 1975, while piloting the aircraft, attempted to take off from a runway and crashed. The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment.

If this case were before the court on a Motion for Directed Verdict, after having heard the evidence, I would have to grant it in favor of the defendant.

While motions to dismiss are not favored, it is not necessary in every case that a case go to a full blown trial. The motion for summary judgment is designed to weed out those cases where there is no disputed issues of fact and where, as a matter of law, conclusions can be reached deciding the case without the necessity of trials.

In this case, as counsel for the plaintiff concedes, the facts are at this point before the court and are undisputed. The plaintiff, for purposes of this motion, is assumed to be the owner of the airplane, although there seems to be some question from reading the deposition as to whether he or some corporation owned it, but as I say, we will assume for purposes of this motion he was the owner and entitled to recover any damages to which the defendant might be responsible. The plaintiff was an experienced pilot in excess, I believe, of eight thousand logged hours, which was less than the actual number of hours flown because after a certain number of hours the only log necessary is to maintain his license.

He was familiar with this type of aircraft. He had flown it on numerous occasions and was aware of the way the gust locks worked, aware that it locked the elevator and aileron. On his visor above his pilot seat was a checklist which was supposed to be gone over prior to each takeoff. One of the items on the checklist was to remove the gust lock which he had obviously done on each prior flying of the aircraft.

There is no question whatsoever that he was aware of the existence of the gust lock, that he was aware that it was used invariably when the plane was tied down, as it was in this case, and that he was aware of the consequences in the event the gust lock was not removed.

The facts are undisputed that he did not make a check of the aircraft, and that he did not check to see that the gust lock was removed. He so states in his deposition candidly and frankly, and without therefore checking the gust lock, he attempted to take off.

He got down the runway and the...