Urban v. Frontier Air Lines, Civ. No. 3879.
Decision Date | 02 March 1956 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 3879. |
Parties | Laura URBAN, Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER AIR LINES, a corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming |
Ellery, Gray & Hickey, Cheyenne, Wyo., for plaintiff.
Clarence A. Swainson, Cheyenne, Wyo., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Laura Urban, a fare-paying passenger on Frontier Airlines, brings this action for recovery of damages which she alleges she sustained through the negligence of defendant's employee.
The undisputed facts may be related, as follows: On the morning of December 31, 1954, plaintiff and her mother-in-law boarded flight No. 2 at Denver, Colorado, with destination Rawlins, Wyoming; prior to the arrival in Cheyenne the weather became rough and turbulent; the plane stopped in Cheyenne for seven or eight minutes and departed for Laramie, a distance of approximately 50 miles; upon leaving Cheyenne the weather continued to be turbulent — using the testimony of the stewardess "It was the roughest trip I have been on since I have been flying"; a short distance out of Cheyenne plaintiff requested permission to go to the plane's lavatory and was advised by the stewardess it was too rough and to "wait a little while"; plaintiff complied with this instruction and a few minutes later, according to plaintiff's testimony, the stewardess nodded her head and advised plaintiff that "I think you can go now"; the plaintiff unfastened her seat belt and went to the lavatory; while in the lavatory the plane hit a down draft, throwing plaintiff to the floor, from which fall she sustained a broken ankle. The testimony respecting permission to go to the lavatory is in striking conflict and constitutes the crux of this controversy.
Defendant in its third defense has interposed the defense of "assumption of risk" and alleges that plaintiff had knowledge that the plane was passing through rough and turbulent weather and that the plaintiff well knew the risk from unfastening her seat belt and leaving her seat. In the early and formidable stages of air travel this defense would be valid.
With each city in the United States linked by air line passenger service to every center of the world it can no longer be said that a passenger entering upon the modern commercial plane voluntarily assumes a risk with respect to the plane itself or its operation. Its pioneering and experimental days with the dangers incidental to trial and error have passed and like the steamships, railroads and automobiles this form of transportation is here to stay. Advertising by airlines of safe and fast travel can be found in most any periodical and newspaper.
The rules applicable to common carriers of passengers apply with equal force to aircraft. It should exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of the plane and protection of its passengers from injury. 6 Am.Jur. Sec. 51. It follows that the defense of assumption of risk is without merit.
Upon arrival in Laramie a few minutes following the accident the stewardess made out the following report, in part as follows:
At Riverton, Wyoming, on the same date of the accident, the stewardess made a second report, the material portions being as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Montellier v. United States
...passengers no longer assent to encountering a known danger either with respect to the plane itself or its operation. Urban v. Frontier Airlines, 139 F.Supp. 288 (D.Wyo.1956); Lopez v. Resort Airlines, 18 F.R.D. 37 (S.D.N.Y.1955). In the area of passengers on private planes a similar result ......
-
Ness v. West Coast Airlines, Inc.
...215 Cal. 714, 12 P.2d 933 (1932); Arrow Aviation, Inc. v. Moore, 266 F.2d 488, 73 A.L.R.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1959); Urban v. Frontier Air Lines, 139 F.Supp. 288 (D. Wyo.1956); 6 Am.Jur., Aviation, § 51; Cudney v. Braniff Airways (Mo.) 300 S.W.2d 412, 73 A.L.R.2d 371, Anno. 379 (1957); Kamienski......
-
Arrow Aviation, Inc. v. Moore
...the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its plane for the safety of the passengers. Urban v. Frontier Air Lines, D.C.Wyo., 139 F. Supp. 288; Smith v. O'Donnell, 215 Cal. 714, 12 P.2d 933; Lundsford v. Tucson Aviation Corp., 73 Ariz. 277, 240 P.2d 545; 6 Am.Jur.......
-
Chapter § 2.05 PHYSICAL INJURIES
...the duty includes the obligation to provide a safe means of passage between an airplane and the terminal"); Urban v. Frontier Airlines, 139 F. Supp. 288 (D. Wyo. 1956). Ninth Circuit: Gabelv. Hughes Air Corp., 350 F. Supp. 612 (C.D. Cal. 1972); Haldane v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 126 F. Supp.......
-
Houston, we have a (liability) problem.
...of assumption of risk is inapplicable to injuries to passengers when traveling on a common carrier); Urban v. Frontier Air Lines, 139 F. Supp. 288, 289 (D. Wyo. 1956) ("[Common carriers] should exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of the plane and prot......