Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp., s. 84-3625
| Decision Date | 25 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 84-3625,84-3626,s. 84-3625 |
| Citation | 784 F.2d 1523 |
| Parties | , 20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 263 John C. RAINEY, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara A. Rainey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Beech Aerospace Services, Inc., and Pratt & Whitney Canada, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees. Rondi M. KNOWLTON, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Bruce Knowlton, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Beech Aerospace Services, Inc., and Pratt & Whitney Canada, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Dennis K. Larry, Donald H. Partington, Pensacola, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Thomas E. Scott, Joseph W. Womack, R. Benjamin Reid, Miami, Fla., Robert P. Gaines, Joe J. Harrell, Pensacola, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before FAY and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN *, Senior District Judge.
Barbara Ann Rainey and Donald Bruce Knowlton died on July 13, 1982 in a fiery plane crash at Middleton Field, Alabama. Their spouses, John Charles Rainey ("Rainey") and Rondi M. Knowlton ("Knowlton") sought money damages under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, Fla.Stat. Secs. 768.16-.27 (1985), in district court. 1 The jury returned a verdict against Rainey and Knowlton. We hold that the trial judge committed reversible error in two evidentiary rulings and remand for a new trial.
On July 13, 1982 Lieutenant Commander Barbara Ann Rainey, a flight instructor with the United States Navy, was issued a T-34C Turbo-Mentor aircraft, number 3E955, for a training exercise at Middleton Field, Alabama. Her student was Ensign Donald Bruce Knowlton. Ensign Knowlton was to practice "touch and go" landings and takeoffs. 2 There were five aircraft in the "touch and go" pattern.
Witnesses testified that Ensign Knowlton, after successfully completing four "touch and go" patterns, began "climbing out low; that is, below the standard altitude, and slow, slower than the 100 knots or 90 knots that the aircraft should have been at." Witnesses also testified that Ensign Knowlton made an early crosswind turn; this early turn prompted two radio transmissions. Captain Charles E. Guthrie, a flight instructor riding in another aircraft in the pattern, cautioned Lieutenant Commander Rainey: 3 "Aircraft turning crosswind, you're cutting somebody out." Similarly, Lieutenant Colonel David I. Habermacher, Jr., a flight instructor in the aircraft forced out of the pattern, transmitted the warning:
Lieutenant Commander Rainey did not verbally respond to these radio transmissions. Witnesses testified, however, that following these transmissions Lieutenant Commander Rainey's aircraft banked sharply to the right. While the threatened midair collision with Lieutenant Colonel Habermacher's aircraft was thus avoided, the aircraft piloted by Lieutenant Commander Rainey rapidly lost altitude, crashed in a wooded area two miles southeast of Middleton Field, and burned. Neither Lieutenant Commander Rainey nor Ensign Knowlton survived the crash.
On July 14, 1982 Lieutenant Colonel Habermacher directed Lieutenant Commander William C. Morgan, Jr. to conduct an informal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the crash. On September 1, 1982 Lieutenant Commander Morgan reported, in writing, his findings of fact, opinions and recommendations pursuant to the requirements established by the Judge Advocate General. Lieutenant Commander Morgan's report lists as an opinion that pilot error was "[t]he most probable cause of the accident."
Rainey and Knowlton disagree with Lieutenant Commander Morgan's opinion. In a letter written to Lieutenant Commander Morgan about the "aircraft mishap," Rainey, also a flight instructor with the United States Navy, concluded that the mishap was not the result of pilot error but more probably "caused by some form of pneumatic sensing/fuel flow malfunction, probably in the fuel control unit." According to Rainey, this malfunction prompted an in-flight "power interruption" or "rollback" making it impossible for Lieutenant Commander Rainey to sustain sufficient power to maintain flight. Knowlton agreed with Rainey's conclusion and on April 15, 1983 Rainey and Knowlton filed separate suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging negligence and strict product liability causes of action. Beech Aircraft Corporation, the manufacturer of the T-34C Turbo-Mentor aircraft, Pratt and Whitney Canada, Inc., the manufacturer of the engine incorporated into the T-34C aircraft, and Beech Aerospace Services, Inc., the United States Navy's contract maintenance service for the T-34C aircraft, were named as defendants.
At trial, the only disputed issue was the cause of the fatal crash. Because both Lieutenant Commander Rainey and Ensign Knowlton were not available to testify and because the aircraft was almost totally destroyed by fire, the parties relied heavily on opinions developed by expert witnesses. The defendants also relied on the opinions contained in the investigative report prepared by Lieutenant Commander Morgan. Pointing to Lieutenant Commander Morgan's opinion that pilot error was the most probable cause of the crash, the defendants argued that they should not be held responsible. The jury agreed.
On August 1, 1984 Rainey and Knowlton, complaining about two of the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, filed a motion for a new trial. 4 The judge denied the motion. This appeal promptly followed.
The district court admitted into evidence, over Rainey and Knowlton's objection, excerpts from the investigative report prepared by Lieutenant Commander Morgan. 5 On appeal, Rainey and Knowlton argue that many of the excerpts from the investigative report, specifically Lieutenant Commander Morgan's opinions, should not have been admitted into evidence because these opinions did not fall within the public records exception to the general hearsay rule. 6
To be admissible, the excerpts from Lieutenant Commander Morgan's report must satisfy the hearsay exception for public records and reports. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(8). Rule 803(8) provides a hearsay exception in civil actions for "factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness." Lieutenant Colonel Habermacher, with authorization from the Manual of the Judge Advocate General Sec. 0902, at 9-3 to -5, appointed Lieutenant Commander Morgan to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the aircraft accident. Lieutenant Commander Morgan's report, since it was prepared in conjunction with an authorized Judge Advocate General investigation, is a public record. Moreover, because no evidence was introduced to show that the report lacked trustworthiness, we find that the report was indeed trustworthy. 7 Thus, the factual findings contained in the report are admissible under Rule 803(8).
Cases interpreting Rule 803(8), however, disclose a difference of opinion as to the meaning of "factual findings." Compare Complaint of American Export Lines, Inc., 73 F.R.D. 454, 458 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (); with Complaint of Paducah Towing Co., 692 F.2d 412, 420 (6th Cir.1982) () (citation omitted). 8 In deciding how to interpret "factual findings" in the context of this case, we are bound by the Fifth Circuit's interpretation in Smith v. Ithaca Corp. 612 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.1980). 9 In Smith, the Fifth Circuit considered the admissibility of a Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation Report and found that the "evaluative conclusions and opinions of the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation contained in the report should not have been admitted into evidence." Id. at 222. The Fifth Circuit noted that:
the language of Rule 803 suggests that "factual findings" defines something other than "opinions" and "diagnoses" which are admissible under Rule 803(6) when contained in the record of "a regularly conducted business activity." Rule 803(8), although similar to Rule 803(6), substitutes the term "factual findings" for "opinions" and "diagnoses." Since these terms are used in similar context within the same Rule, it is logical to assume that Congress intended that the terms have different and distinct meanings.
612 F.2d at 221-22 (citations omitted). Thus, while the defendants urge us to follow "[t]he prevailing view ... that all evaluative conclusions are within the scope of Rule 803(8)(C)," Walker v. Fairchild Industries, 554 F.Supp. 650, 653 (D.Nev.1982) (citations omitted); see also Cohen v. General Motors Corp., 534 F.Supp. 509, 512 (W.D.Mo.1982) () (citations omitted), we are not free to do so. The Fifth Circuit in Smith clearly launched this court's precedent in a different direction, a direction we must follow. We therefore hold that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the evaluative conclusions and opinions contained in Lieutenant Commander Morgan's report.
Having concluded that the district court erred in admitting into evidence these evaluative conclusions and opinions, we must now determine whether this error was harmless. See Collins v. Wayne Corp., 621 F.2d 777, 782 (5th Cir.1980). We hold that it was not.
Several of Lieutenant Commander Morgan's opinions touched on the cause of the aircraft crash--the ultimate issue the jury was to decide. These opinions were submitted to the jury without ever having been tested by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
...out of context." 333 S.C. 159, 170, 508 S.E.2d 870, 876 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 784 F.2d 1523, 1529 (11th Cir.1986)). The rule applies to oral communications as well as written statements. State v. Cabrera-Pena, 361 S.C. 372, 379, 6......
-
Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
...requires a reversal for a new trial, the effect of this en banc procedure is to reinstate the panel opinion. Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 784 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir.1986). This opinion will simply review the case and the effect of this Lieutenant Commander Barbara Ann Rainey, a flight instr......
-
U.S. v. Asher
...EEOC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 81 Civ. 8145, slip op. at --- (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 1986).21 See generally Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 784 F.2d 1523, 1528 (11th Cir.) ("defendants were able to capitalize on the improper admission of [opinion evidence] by highlighting the opinions to the ......
-
Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
...and his testimony. For that reason the offer is denied.R. 176 at 569-71.20 The plaintiffs' citation to Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 784 F.2d 1523, 1528-30 (11th Cir.1986) and 827 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct 1073, 99 L.Ed.2d 233 (1988), is i......
-
Governmental documents
...a whole, the report is admitted. 36 34 Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey , 488 U.S. 153, 109 S. Ct. 439, 102 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1988), reversing 784 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1986). Consider also Van Steemburg v. General Aviation, Inc ., 183 Ill. Dec. 496, 611 N.E.2d 1144, 243 Ill. App. 3d 299 (Ill. Ap......
-
Governmental Documents
...Governmental Documents §21.500 33 Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey , 488 U.S. 153, 109 S. Ct. 439, 102 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1988), reversing 784 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1986). Consider also Van Steemburg v. General Aviation, Inc ., 183 Ill. Dec. 496, 611 N.E.2d 1144, 243 Ill. App. 3d 299 (Ill. App. 1 ......
-
Governmental Documents
...178, 247 Neb. 323 (Neb. 1995). 27 Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey , 488 U.S. 153, 109 S. Ct. 439, 102 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1988), reversing 784 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1986). Consider also Van Steemburg v. General Aviation, Inc ., 183 Ill. Dec. 496, 611 N.E.2d 1144, 243 Ill. App. 3d 299 (Ill. App. 1 ......
-
Governmental Documents
...178, 247 Neb. 323 (Neb. 1995). 27 Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey , 488 U.S. 153, 109 S. Ct. 439, 102 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1988), reversing 784 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1986). Consider also Van Steemburg v. General Aviation, Inc ., 183 Ill. Dec. 496, 611 N.E.2d 1144, 243 Ill. App. 3d 299 (Ill. App. 1 ......