Lightenburger v. Gordon, 5704
| Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 5704,5704 |
| Citation | 89 Nev. 226,510 P.2d 865 |
| Parties | Geraldine L. LIGHTENBURGER et al., Appellants, v. Joan K. GORDON et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Morton Galane, Las Vegas, Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, for appellants.
Beckley, DeLanoy & Jemison, Las Vegas, for respondents.
Geraldine Lightenburger for herself, and on behalf of three minor children, commenced this action to recover damages for the wrongful death of her husband, Dale, who was killed when the Cessna 310 in which he was riding crashed and burned at the Los Angeles International Airport on December 6, 1962. The pilot was James L. Gordon who also was killed. The defendants to the action are the executor of his estate and his surviving wife.
The initial trial resulted in a jury verdict for the defendants which this court set aside. Lightenburger v. Gordon, 81 Nev. 553, 407 P.2d 728 (1965). The case was tried once more, and again the jury favored the defendants. This appeal is from the judgment entered upon the verdict of the second trial. A complete recitation of the facts surrounding the plane crash may be found in our first opinion and will not be repeated here.
Each trial was presented to the court and jury on the basis of California law. The airplane guest statute of that state deprives the heirs of a deceased airplane guest of any recovery unless death resulted from the pilot's willful misconduct or intoxication. 1 The statute thus withdraws from aircraft 'guests,' that is, passengers who give no compensation for their ride, the protection against negligently inflicted injuries. For this reason, the plaintiffs presented two theories for recovery. First, that the decedent Lightenburger was a passenger for consideration, and was killed by the negligence of the pilot Gordon. Second, that Lightenburger's status was that of a guest, and that he was killed by the willful misconduct of Gordon. Thus, the issues regarding the status of Lightenburger, and the standard of care by which the liability of the pilot was to be determined, were critical issues in the case.
The jury returned a general verdict. Consequently, we do not know the reasoning upon which that result was reached. Perhaps recovery was denied on the ground that Lightenburger was a passenger and pilot negligence was not established; or because Lightenburger was found to be a guest, and the pilot's willful misconduct was not shown; or, because the pilot's conduct, however characterized, did not proximately cause the crash.
On February 20, 1973, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal.3d 855, 106 Cal.Rptr. 388, 506 P.2d 212, holding that the automobile guest statute of that state violates the equal protection guarantees of the California and United States Constitutions. The court reasoned that the proffered justifications for that statute--the protection of hospitality and the prevention of collusive lawsuits--did not constitute a rational basis for the differential treatment accorded by the statute's classification scheme. The 'protection of hospitality' rationale was found fatally defective since it did not explain why different treatment was accorded automobile guests from all other guests; how the interest in protecting hospitality could rationally justify the withdrawal of legal protection from guests, nor does it take account of the prevalence of liability insurance coverage which effectively undermines any rational connection between the prevention of suits and the protection of hospitality. The 'prevention of collusion' rationale was found to be too gross and overinclusive since the statute bars the great majority of valid suits along with fraudulent claims. Id. 106 Cal.Rptr. 388, 506 P.2d at 215.
In voiding, as unconstitutional, the automobile guest statute of that state, the court also effectively nullified the airplane guest statute which was modeled after the automobile provision. 2
As noted before, the tragedy giving rise to this litigation occurred more than ten years ago. The cause twice has been litigated in this State and once in the federal system against a different defendant, the United States. Lightenburger v. United States, 460 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1972). When Brown v. Merlo, supra, was decided, the instant matter had been retried, appealed, briefed, orally argued, and submitted for decision. Consequently, the respondents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. United States
...they proceeded on the assumption that California law applied based on the fact that the parties themselves agreed on that point.6 The Lightenburger case returned to the Nevada Supreme Court after the retrial, again on appeal by the plaintiffs. The court briefly described the history of the ......
-
Laakonen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County
...enlightened people to the hallowed question: 'How much then is a man better than a sheep? " (Footnote omitted.) In Lightenburger v. Gordon, 89 Nev. 226, 510 P.2d 865 (1973), this court, in applying California law, held that the California airplane guest statute was in violation of equal pro......
-
Cummings v. Morez
...to the complaint in this action.' The New York Court of Appeals thus gave retroactive effect to Brown. SECOND: The case of Lightenburger v. Gordon (Nev.) 510 P.2d 865, involved an action for wrongful death arising from the crash of a private plane in California in December 1962 which result......
-
Batesel v. Schultz
...effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality is to render the statute null and void. As this court said in Lightenburger v. Gordon, 89 Nev. 226, 228, 510 P.2d 865, 867 (1973), regarding the California Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Merlo, 506 P.2d 212 (1973), which held that Californi......