According to expert testimony produced by plaintiffs, the stall resulted in a nonrecoverable flat spin caused by the undue spinning tendency of the airplane.
4Īt the trial, plaintiffs claimed that the crash was caused by the stall of the airplane with the left engine feathered, and an inadequate stall warning system. The heirs of the passengers and of Miro (hereafter plaintiffs) sought recovery on several theories, including negligence per se, alleging that the Travel Air did not comply with various safety regulations adopted by the FAA.
#BEECH TRAVEL AIR PERFORMANCE TRIAL#
3 Miro's insurer settled with the heirs of the passengers, and the trial proceeded against Beech. The wives and children of the three passengers filed wrongful death actions against Beech and Miro, and Miro's heirs filed an action against Beech. A thermostatic valve in the left engine was broken. The landing gear was in the "down" position, and the wing flaps were partially or all the way down. When the Travel Air was found after the crash, it was discovered that Miro had turned off the left fuel selector, shut down the left engine, and feathered (i.e., streamlined in the direction of flight) the left propeller blades. It recovered briefly, but fell again into a final flat spin and crashed seven minutes after takeoff. After takeoff, the airplane reached an altitude of 800 feet, made two right turns into the traffic pattern, then suddenly turned left out of the traffic pattern, fell over, and went into a spin. It was daylight, the weather was clear, and the winds were light. Miro, an experienced pilot, took three prospective buyers on a demonstration flight in a Travel Air twin engine airplane manufactured by defendant Beech Aircraft Corporation (Beech). The primary issue in this case is whether the doctrine may be applied to hold liable for defective design the manufacturer of an aircraft that allegedly violated safety standards promulgated by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), even though the agency had issued to the manufacturer a certificate declaring that the design of the airplane met all applicable safety standards. This presumption may be rebutted by proof that the violator did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law. It provides that negligence of a person is presumed if he violated a statute or regulation of a public entity, if the injury resulted from an occurrence that the regulation was designed to prevent, and if the person injured was within the class for whose protection the regulation was adopted.
#BEECH TRAVEL AIR PERFORMANCE CODE#
Section 669 of the Evidence Code sets forth the doctrine commonly called negligence per se. Ibler, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Magana, Cathcart, McCarthy & Pierry, Daniel C. Lipsman, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Robert Forgnone for Defendant and Appellant.
Morris, Polich & Purdy, Landon Morris, Robert S. (Opinion by Mosk, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.) BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant JO ANN MIRO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. DORIS ELSWORTH et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
0 kommentar(er)
