Winsor v. United Air Lines, Civ. A. No. 17274.

Decision Date25 June 1957
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 17274.
Citation153 F. Supp. 244
PartiesCharles H. WINSOR, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Alma L. Winsor, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIR LINES, Inc., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Theodore E. Wolcott, New York City, for plaintiff.

Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, by Douglas B. Bowring, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The plaintiff, a resident of Newfoundland, individually and as administrator of his deceased wife, sues to recover damages for her death, and otherwise as to be stated, by reason of the crash of the defendant's airplane in the vicinity of Longmont, Colorado, on November 1, 1955.

The tragedy was caused by the placing of a bomb in the airplane by one Graham, in order to bring about the death of his mother who was a passenger on the plane which also carried the plaintiff's decedent.

The explosion of the bomb, which Graham had placed in his mother's baggage, caused the crash of the plane and the death of all passengers and crew. The crime was discovered and Graham has paid his penalty.

The plaintiff's intestate who was a resident of Newfoundland, had purchased air transportation from Gander to Seattle, Washington, and return.

Thus the transportation was international and is governed by the so-called Warsaw Convention, 49 Stat. 3000; it involved air-flight from Gander to New York, thence to Seattle by way of Denver. The ticket was issued to plaintiff's decedent by Trans World Airlines, Inc., at Gander for the round trip transportation above described, with intermediate stops at New York both ways.

The trip from New York was known as United Flight No. 629 and included a scheduled stop at Chicago, Denver and Portland, Oregon, before arrival at Seattle; the Chicago and Denver stops were made, and in the latter city the plane was refueled and had its last service check. A new crew took over the operation of the flight at Denver, where a number of passengers, including Graham's mother, boarded the plane for the flight to Seattle, their baggage having been loaded on the plane before departure.

The foregoing summary is taken from the affidavit of one Petty, Vice-President in charge of Flight Operations for the defendant, and is not contradicted on the part of the plaintiff.

Seemingly the defendant will be required to prove that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the happening or that such measures were impossible of accomplishment; also to present proof of the cause of the disaster and the methods employed by the defendant in the loading of passengers' baggage.

By reason of the death of all who were on the plane, the fact of the explosion will necessarily be testified to by witnesses who observed it, of whom there are six; they apparently testified at the criminal trial of Graham.

Another witness will be one Stevenson, a pilot employed by the defendant, who was in the air at the time of the explosion and observed it from his plane.

Twenty persons are named who assisted in the collection and identification of the various parts of the plane after the explosion, and from those fragments and the description of the wreckage, those whose duty it was to investigate the happening were able to form an opinion of its cause; all but four of the foregoing reside in or near Denver, Colorado, and they reside in San Francisco, California.

It is said that other witnesses will be called who are employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and still others with regard to the purchase of dynamite by Graham. All of those witnesses are said to reside in or near Denver, except J. William Magee, a resident of Washington, D. C.

Seven employees of the defendant will testify concerning the method of loading the baggage aboard the plane in connection with this flight, and they all reside in Denver.

Four other persons, also residents of that city, are expected to testify concerning the usual and customary procedure followed in the loading of baggage on such a plane in Denver.

One named witness, it is said, will testify as to the absence of any explosive material in the air cargo being carried by the plane.

Numerous other witnesses are listed who are residents of Denver, who are said to have participated in the servicing of this plane immediately before its takeoff; and finally the pilot of Flight 629 from Chicago to Denver will be a necessary witness and he also is a resident of Denver.

Since the plaintiff himself did not accompany his wife, it must be obvious that he cannot testify to any facts touching the actual happening; the only witness whom he expects to call is one Pinsent of Gander, Newfoundland, who will testify as to the condition of the decedent's body on arrival in Newfoundland; this is in connection with the third cause of action as pleaded in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Schneider v. Sears
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 14 Marzo 1967
    ...34 See Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Hawkins v. General Controls Corp., 225 F.Supp. 971, 972 (S.D.N.Y.1964); Winsor v. United Air Lines, 153 F.Supp. 244, 247 (S.D.N.Y.1957). Cf. Weiss v. Doyle, 178 F.Supp. 566 (S.D.N.Y.1959). 35 Parsons v. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 375 U.S. 71, 73, 84 S.Ct. 185, 71 ......
  • Rosman v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 13 Junio 1974
    ...Anonyme Belge D'Explortation, D.C., 207 F.Supp. 191; Spencer v. Northwest Orient Airlines, D.C., 201 F.Supp. 504; Winsor v. United Air Lines, D.C., 153 F.Supp. 244 (meaning of 'principal place of business' in art. 28, subd. (1)); (5) Eck v. United Arab Airlines, 15 N.Y.2d 53, 255 N.Y.S.2d 2......
  • Popkin v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 6 Abril 1962
    ...U.S. 19, 21, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540 (1960); Cressman v. United Air Lines, 158 F.Supp. 404 (S.D. N.Y.1958); Winsor v. United Air Lines, 153 F.Supp. 244 (E.D.N.Y.1957). Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has emphasized the desirability of consolidation ......
  • Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 3 Mayo 1967
    ...Sears, 265 F.Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y.1967); Hawkins v. General Controls Corp., 225 F.Supp. 971, 972 (S.D.N.Y.1964); Winsor v. United Air Lines, 153 F.Supp. 244, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1957). 17 See Parsons v. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 375 U.S. 71, 73, 84 S.Ct. 185, 11 L.Ed.2d 137 (1963); A. Olinick & Sons v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • MDL consolidation of aviation disaster cases before and after Lexecon.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 67 No. 2, April 2000
    • 1 Abril 2000
    ...376 (S.D.N.Y. 1954) (no transfer because one defendant not amenable to service in transferee court); Winsor v. United Air Lines Inc., 153 F.Supp. 244 (E.D.N.Y. 1957) (action transferred to Colorado, where related action had been commenced and three actions had been transferred; aircraft exp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT