Rinehart v. Woodford Flying Service

• Decision Date: 11 June 1940
• Docket Number: 9025.
• Citation: 9 S.E.2d 521,122 W.Va. 392
• Parties: RINEHART et al. v. WOODFORD FLYING SERVICE, Inc., et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

9 S.E.2d 521

122 W.Va. 392

RINEHART et al. v. WOODFORD FLYING SERVICE, Inc., et al.

No. 9025.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

June 11, 1940

E. L. Maxwell, of Elkins, for plaintiffs in error.

D E. Cuppett, Sr., of Thomas, and D. E. Cuppett, Jr., of Petersburg, for defendant in error.

HATCHER Judge.

Plaintiffs recovered a judgment for damages received by their airplane in a collision with that of defendants.

A commercial meet was in progress on July 4, 1938, at the Elkins Municipal Airport, the home port of plaintiffs' plane. It, after an absence of several days from the port, returned in the daytime, and while landing collided with defendants' plane, a participant in the meet, which was also landing at the same moment. The questions here relate to the rules and regulations applicable to the landings.

Code 29-2A-2, gave the West Virginia Board of Aeronautics authority over all phases of aerial activities, with power to make such rules and regulations as the board deemed advisable for the public safety, the board being required, however, to "adopt and enforce the provisions of the federal air commerce act, now in force or as hereafter amended, so as to make applicable as far as possible the provisions of that act to the State of West Virginia." Section 7 provided that non-compliance with any rule or regulation of the board should be a misdemeanor. The public safety as provided for by the federal act established a definite legislative standard for the guidance of the board and thus legalized its rules and regulations made in furtherance of that standard. "The legislature may not vest executive officers or bodies with uncontrolled discretion in making rules and regulations and must establish sufficient standards for their guidance. However, having established a sufficiently definite policy, standard, or rule, the legislature may authorize an administrative officer or body to make rules, regulations, or orders relating to the administration or enforcement of the law, and give to such rules and regulations binding force and effect of law." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 138 pages 352-353. Accord:United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 S.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563.

In conformity with the statute, the board passed a rule that no person should land an aircraft on any airport in West Virginia, except according to the prescriptions of the Air Commerce Regulations established by the Secretary of Commerce. Under the express legislative mandate to the board, this rule is a law. The federal act in effect at the time of this collision provided that the Secretary of Commerce should "establish air traffic rules for the navigation *** of aircraft." U.S.C., F.C.A., title 49, Chapter 6, Section 173(e). The regulation of the Secretary applicable here was this: "60.3302(c) Aircraft approaching for a landing shall circle the airport or other landing area sufficiently to observe other traffic, unless the pilot receives other instructions from the airport traffic control operator. Such circles shall be made to the left unless the pilot receives other instructions from the airport traffic control operator, or unless local traffic rules approved by the Secretary provide otherwise." The board supplemented the above regulation with this one: "All aircraft approaching the airport shall fall in the line of traffic and skirt the field until a point has been reached where a landing can be made (as nearly as surface conditions will permit) into the wind (directly into the wind in case of all-way fields) and if practicable with a straight glide beginning at least 1,000 feet from the leeward edge of the landing field as practicable. Pilots by day shall circle the field not less than 180 degrees before landing."

One of plaintiffs was piloting their plane at the time of the collision and they rely on his uncontradicted testimony as showing compliance with these regulations. He described his approach and landing as follows: "We approached the Elkins Municipal Airport from the direction of the City of Elkins and came in over the west end of the airport, *** and encircled the airport counter-clockwise, keeping the airport so we could look to our left and have a plain view of the airport. As we...