De Vere v. True-Flite, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1066. |
| Citation | 268 F. Supp. 226 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | Catherine DE VERE, Plaintiff, v. TRUE-FLITE, INC. and United States of America, Defendants. |
Eugene H. Phillips, Winston-Salem, N. C., and Timothy J. Healey, Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City, for plaintiff.
Karl W. McGhee and Ellis A. Aycock, Stevens, Burgwin, McGhee & Ryals, Wilmington, N. C., for True-Flite, Inc.
Robert H. Cowen, U. S. Atty., Gerald L. Bass, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wallace E. Maloney, Department of Justice, John R. Harrison, Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, D. C., for the United States.
This case comes before this court upon a complaint filed by plaintiff wherein she alleges that the joint negligence of the defendants caused an airplane crash which injured her as alleged in the complaint. A trial to the court was held in August 1966, and the apparent delay in this decision has been occasioned largely by the time required for the filing of post-trial briefs.
As to the defendant, True-Flite, Inc., jurisdiction is properly founded on diversity of citizenship since the defendant is a corporation of North Carolina, while the plaintiff at no time mentioned in this action was a citizen of North Carolina.
As to the claim against the United States, jurisdiction is properly founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1346, commonly referred to as the Federal Tort Claims Act. The requisite $10,000 jurisdictional amount will be deemed to be present under the "plaintiff's viewpoint" since the plaintiff sues for an amount which is in excess of $10,000.
As stated above, this action grows out of an airplane crash. The pilot, Lester Teal, landed the single engine Cessna 182 aircraft at the New Hanover County Airport in the early morning hours of June 27, 1964. There he met the plaintiff, Catherine DeVere, at approximately 3:30 a. m.
Teal and Mrs. DeVere boarded the aircraft after Teal obtained clearance from the tower and was told that VFR conditions existed. Thereupon Teal and his passenger embarked on what was planned to be a pattern flight around the airport. Several minutes after takeoff, the aircraft flew into some thick clouds. While attempting to reestablish visual contact with the ground, Teal and Mrs. DeVere crashed in a swamp, injuring Teal permanently and Mrs. DeVere less severely. The two remained there for about thirty hours. Finally Mrs. DeVere was able to find her way to a house where she summoned help.
Plaintiff alleges that True-Flite, through its agent, Teal, was negligent in that: (a) he did not check the local weather forecast before taking off; (b) he took off when he could observe for himself that the weather was unfavorable; (c) he knew that the clouds were low in that area by reason of his flight into Wilmington; (d) he did not execute the proper procedure to reestablish visual contact with the ground once it was lost.
Plaintiff alleges further that the United States was negligent in that: (a) its agent, the tower operator, failed to give accurate information to the pilot, Teal, when Teal asked if the flying conditions were VFR; (b) its agent, the tower operator, did not initiate search and rescue operations when the aircraft failed to return.
We find that the United States was in no way negligent. The tower operator gave the latest information that he had to the pilot which indicated that VFR conditions were existing. The fact that the tower operator called the weather bureau to confirm this but could not get an answer is, we find, of no consequence because the meteorologist testified that if she had been reached by the tower operator when he called to check about flying conditions while Teal and the plaintiff waited to take off, she would have told him that VFR conditions were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Himmler v. United States
...had even acknowledged having the other plane in sight. Therefore, these cases are distinguishable on their facts. DeVere v. True-Flite, Inc., 268 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.N.C.1967) was cited for the proposition that a pilot must find out the forecasted weather and cannot ignore weather information ......
-
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Port Authority
...v. United States, 441 F.2d 741 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 913, 92 S.Ct. 233, 30 L.Ed.2d 186 (1971); DeVere v. True-Flite, Inc., 268 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.N.C. 1967). Pilots cannot fail to use their own eyes and ears to be aware of danger. In Re Aircrash Disaster at John F. Kennedy In......
-
Gill v. United States
...1964), aff'd., 352 F.2d 523 (3rd Cir. 1965); Hartz v. United States, 249 F.Supp. 119 (N.D., Georgia 1965); De Vere v. United States, 268 F.Supp. 226 (E.D., No.Car., 1967). Nevertheless, it is equally well recognized that the United States can be liable in tort in air crash cases if any negl......
-
Davis v. United States
...responsibility is making an informed decision that weather conditions are suitable for the proposed flight. Cf., De vere v. True Flite, 268 F.Supp. 226, 228 (E.D.N.C.1967). 12. Although it might not have been necessary under other circumstances for Davis to assure himself that VFRs flight w......