Leversen v. Boeing Co., s. 72--2587
| Decision Date | 27 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 72--2587,72--2591,s. 72--2587 |
| Parties | Margaret M. LEVERSEN, as Executrix of the Estate of Leonard A. Leversen, now Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant. v. The BOEING COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Carol Elizabeth SCHLEMMER, as Administratrix of the Estate of Walter Ralph Schlemmer, now Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOEING COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. (Santa Monica Air Crash Cases) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
D. Cathcart (argued), of Magana & Cathcart, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
B. Boyd Hight Jr. (argued), of O'Melveny & Meyers, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
Leonard A. Leversen and Walter R. Schlemmer were the captain-pilot and the first officer (co-pilot) of a United Airlines flight crew that crashed into the ocean near Santa Monica as they were flying a nearly-new Boeing 727 jet aircraft on a regularly scheduled flight. No one aboard survived the crash.
There was more than one defendant, but only Boeing remains. 1 The district court sitting in admiralty without a jury found Boeing's flight manual was defective in its instructions on loss of electric power. The crew could have been following the manual and the procedure set forth therein could have been a proximate cause of the crash. But the trial court decided it could not find the faulty manual to be a proximate cause and found it was not a proximate cause. There was evidence that the United crews had been instructed to disregard the Boeing manual on the loss of electric power for instruments and employ a different procedure. Whatever presumptions there are in the field, it would be hard to presume the crew followed Boeing's manual and rejected their employer's instructions.
Additionally, the court's finding that electric power for the instruments was never significantly interrupted at the relevant time undercuts the whole theory that a faulty manual caused the trouble.
We fully realize that in the recent years there has been a slackening of required proof in negligence cases and particularly in air crash cases. A great deal of speculation is permitted. The old rules of inferences on inferences being bad are pretty well gone.
But we simply cannot find yet any authority which requires the fact trier, when he has an abiding doubt reasonably based on all the evidence, to always...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higginbotham v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...liability, as well as under ordinary negligence. In re Marine Suplhur Queen, 2 Cir. 1972, 460 F.2d 89, 101-02; see also Leverson v. Boeing Co., 9 Cir. 1975, 510 F.2d 937. Thus, whether the district judge believed that these cases were based upon negligence or upon strict liability, his inqu......
-
COMPLAINT OF AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, INC.
...was a proximate cause of the injury incurred. See Harrison, 577 F.2d at 984 (maritime and Texas law) (dictum); Leversen v. Boeing Co., 510 F.2d 937, 938 (9th Cir.1975). First, with respect to the keys in the linkage, the manual is adequate. The testimony established that the manual did not ......
-
Browne v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
...aircraft case." Appellants cite no authority for this proposition, however, and we rejected an identical argument in Leversen v. Boeing Co., 510 F.2d 937, 938 (9th Cir.1975). As we said then, it is not the law that in aircraft crash cases everyone sued must Finally, appellants argue that th......