The issue of determination at the center of this case is whether it is the obligation of an aviation Company that leases airplanes to verify the validity of their client’s pilot licenses. This issue is aptly stated in the arbitration of the case by the Court which asks; “Is the renter of an airplane responsible for the certification and currency of the pilot?” Anderson Aviation Sales Co. is the defendant in the case that is being sued for negligent entrustment of their airplane to Dockery who was their client leading to the death of the plaintiff family.
Rule/Applicable Laws
The legal rule that should be applied in this case is the doctrine of negligent entrustment. Based on the principles of the common law the elements of “fault” can be applied to determine if the defendant in this case should be liable for the charges.
Four rules are applied in various jurisdictions concerning the determination of negligence entrustment cases; contributory negligence rule, modified comparative fault standard, 51-percent-bar-rule, and the pure comparative fault rule. Arizona is one of the States among the 46 or so that rely on pure comparative fault rule in negligence cases which allows a plaintiff to sue for damages despite their contributory acts to the accident; “a plaintiff to recover even if he or she is as much as 99 percent at fault, with damages reduced accordingly”. This is the rule that the Court must rely on in its ruling.
Application
The law on negligent entrustment was originally designed to address accident claims that resulted from motor vehicle accidents.
However, this law has over the years been adopted to apply to aviation laws as well where it has been used to arbitrate aviation accident cases. In a landmark ruling on negligent entrustment that involved an aviation Company, a California court in the case of White v. Inbound Aviation held that “an FBO is not supposed to rent an aircraft to a pilot who the FBO knows isn’t competent to complete the planned flight safely”, the elements of competent in this case can take various forms.
This case involved an arbitration of whether the aviation Company should be held responsible for negligence having known full well that the pilot was not experienced to operate aircraft in “mountain flying”, notwithstanding the verification of a valid FAA license that permitted him to fly anywhere. The element that the court relied most in its ruling is the fact that the defendant knew the pilot was not competent to fly in the region that was indicated on the flight plan, but which the defendant chose to overlook anyway.
Negligence is defined in law as “conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm”, it is from this definition that the three elements that are prerequisite to negligence cases are based. As such the court must establish that the defendant relation with the plaintiff indicated presence of duty towards plaintiff, which was breached or not properly executed, leading to the direct cause of harm sustained by the plaintiff. In our case the circumstances of the crash are less or more the same; the plaintiff failed to verify the validity of the pilot license with relevant authorities which amounts to disregard of “standards of care” which in this case is lacking because of their omission to act in accordance with professional protocols.
In any case the defendant negligence in this case goes beyond the act of failing to verify the pilot license as Standard Operating Procedure’s (SOPs) will require, but also fails to advise the pilot on the airport and weather conditions at Blythe airport which is the key factor that ultimately led to the crash. Generally there are five conditions that a court will attempt to establish to be present in circumstances where the doctrine of negligent entrustment is being applied; entrustment of an object to the plaintiff, lack of license or presence of incompetence in the person entrusted, which the owner knew or should have known, occurrence of negligence and finally existence of injuries that emanated from the negligence.
These are the legal principles applied in similar cases which involves automobiles as was the case in Rocca v. Steinmetz (1923) where the Court held that an owner of a vehicle is negligent “when he permits an incompetent or reckless person, whom he knows to be incompetent or reckless, to take and operate his car”. Again if we are to assess the five conditions based on the circumstance that led to the plane crash we find it highly probable that the defendant’s actions are largely to blame for the crash.
Conclusion
Since determination of negligent entrustment in cases is essentially a process of apportioning blame between various parties using the doctrine of negligent entrustment it is clear from the facts of the case that the defendant is the most liable party under the circumstances that eventually led to the crash of the aircraft. In any case the Arizona laws that govern the doctrine of negligence entrustment relies on the principle of comparative fault rule which means that the defendant will be apportioned the greatest liability based on the facts of the case.
It is on these principles of the law and the precedent ruling of similar cases that informed the Courts judgment of the case which required the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.
Brief/Reasoning
If the defendant is in the business of hiring airplanes to private individuals who are pilots it will be expected of them to take prudent measures to ensure that the clients are not only competent but are legally licensed at the time of leasing the flight as well. This was the summary of the trial Court and the Superior Court ruling on the matter which found the defendant guilty of negligence entrustment. Indeed the Superior Court ruling that upheld the earlier verdict identified four instances of recklessness that indicated the defendant was careless throughout the process of leasing the aircraft and in the overall management of the Company in what amounted to negligence.
One, the defendant failed to observe SOPs while leasing the aircraft by failing to verify the pilot’s license status with the relevant authorities. The defendant also flaunted procedures by allowing the pilot to depart without filing a flight plan as required by law. Third, the defendant failed to avail to the pilot timely crucial information about the weather and general conditions of the destination airport that could have prevented the accident. Finally the defendant operational protocols were also not in accordance to the law since the chief pilot was not there to oversee the leasing of aircraft. It is on this basis that I find the Superior Court ruling on the case to be in accordance with the principles of the law.