Estate of Corbitt v. EAA: EAA and NWEAA Win in Court of Appeals Decision

Some of you are surely aware of the 2002 lawsuit in Snohomish County, Washington against EAA and NWEAA arising out of the fatal crash of Don Corbitt's RV-6A in 1999. In 2006, after a lengthy trial, the superior court jury awarded a large judgment in favor of Corbitt's estate, and against both EAA and NWEAA.

The case went up to the Court of Appeals, and yesterday the court reversed the judgment, finding that EAA and NWEAA were not liable. The opinion can be found http://http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=595199M AJ A PDF version can be downloaded at the top page of the link.

I've not read the opinion yet and cannot comment on it; I am posting the information here for those who may be interested.

Fly safe.

[brianwallis]

Well, my eyes hurt after reading the entire document in small type. It appears, the courts did not go into aerodynamics or cause of the accident. They did talk about ditches and protection and several other court cases where the organizer was responsible for protection of the invited individual(s). It also talked about the land leased by the event was not where the individual came to rest in the aircraft. If the individual had crashed upon the leased surface, the outcome could of been quite different as the courts seems to believe that the organizers have the duty to warn it's guests about imminent dangers surrounding their venue. This may of been the accident whereupon the pilot had the control stick of the rv-6a secured by a seatbelt, I'm not sure. It stated that he climbed and immediately rolled which would substantiate the seatbelt theory. The initial award was 10.5 MILLION.... it was overturned. The real suit was over the protection provided by the (all volunteer) emergency services. She argued that the emergency protection should of extended from the venue to land outside the venue. I did find a fair amount of documentation about the deceased and his flight time and recent earning of the private fixed wing license. 136 hrs I believe. I'm glad EAA and the other organization entered into a letter of understanding to clarify their relationships. In the future, maybe we can protect ourselves somehow from lawsuits... I'm not a lawyer.... and I don't know how, but it would be nice to have a non-liable form on the eaa membership form that basically states nobody can sue anybody for any reason. I'm guessing the price of a new airplane goes like this, 50% to insurance and lawyers... and 50% to the aircraft company... I could be wrong. Only if I were King for a day.....

Yes, the case was not about what caused the accident (there was evidence at trial about the stick being secured by a seatbelt, but it was not conclusive), but rather the case turned on whether EAA and NWEAA had taken reasonable measures to respond to an accident (having an ARFFS truck and crew on hand). Premises liability cases usually are based on an allegedly dangerous condition on the premises that are controlled by the defendant, but in some cases the theory can be based on the premises possessor's alleged duty to protect guests from hazards that are not created by or inherent in the premises itself (like the Nivens case discussed in the opinion). Corbitt's estate relied primarily on that latter theory.

It is possible that Corbitt's estate will appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, which can choose to accept review of this decision or decline to review it. If it does accept review, it will be at least another year before the final decision in the case is issued.

[Geico266]

The good news is it was over turned. The bad news is the suit was filed in the first place.

When are we as a country going to reform liability laws? This is KILLING our country.

[Tomasz]

It looks to me that she (the widow) lost her case because of loop holes - the EAA and NWEAA are found not responsible because crash happened outside their leased property and the city of Arlington was declared not liable before and that order was not appealed. Like she didn't appeal first order being sure to get bigger money from EAA and now she's left with nothing.

BUT setting all financial things aside a question comes to my mind that I'd like to know answer for. "What is the time I(we) can expect fire truck being on stand by to get to any point of the airport?". The crash happened on the airport perimeter (from NTSB: "...the aircraft impacted a parallel taxiway...") and there was fire truck on duty during the airshow. Yet it took them 3 to 5 minutes to get to the place. So if it ever happens to me how fast can I expect them to get to me lying in fire on taxiway? Is there any rule for that? Any norm?

[Tomasz]

Originally Posted by Geico266

The good news is it was over turned. The bad news is the suit was filed in the first place.

When are we as a country going to reform liability laws? This is KILLING our country.

It's not the liability laws that kills this country. It's the money judges are granting. If the fire crew did arrive too late they (in my opinion) are/were liable and should be held for it. But it always amazes me how they came up with the amount?

[jtrusso]

Originally Posted by Tomasz

It looks to me that she (the widow) lost her case because of loop holes - the EAA and NWEAA are found not responsible because crash happened outside their leased property and the city of Arlington was declared not liable before and that order was not appealed. ?

I read the opinion a bit differently; NWEAA won their case because they are not responsible from protecting invitees from their own negligent actions. In the jury trial Mr. Corbitt was assigned negligence for his own death. The Nivens trial cited stated that property owners have a duty to protect invitees from forseeable 3rd parties, not from themselves. The fact that the accident took place outside of the property leased by the NWEAA was cited as supporting the decision, but not the main reason why the case was overturned.

The EAA won their case because the court stated they had no legal obligation to Mr. Corbitt as they were not the organizers of the event or the lessee for the property on which the event was held.

Just my clarification.

[Tomasz]

Originally Posted by jtrusso

I read the opinion a bit differently; NWEAA won their case because they are not responsible from protecting invitees from their own negligent actions. In the jury trial Mr. Corbitt was assigned negligence for his own death.

I don't want to start dispute but from the order:

"The complaint alleged that NWEAA, EAA, and the City of Arlington were negligent for "failing to adequately respond to Mr. Corbitt's accident" and failing "to provide adequate fire, rescue, and emergency response for the
fly-in."

which is clear to me - the widow sued the city and organizations for slow respond to the crash, not for preventing the crash from happening in the first place.

The dismissal of the City was, as I recall, based on the "public duty doctrine", under which a public entity (city, county, etc.) that owes a generalized duty to the population cannot be liable to someone who is injured because the City failed to carry out that duty in their particular case. Example: firefighters have a duty to respond to fire calls, if they are slow and fail to get to your burning house in time, that may be "negligence" under the law, but the City is immune from liability for that. Or, building department has a duty to inspect new construction for code compliance, but if they sign off the work as "OK" and in fact there are all kinds of defects that fail to meet code, you (the project owner) cannot sue for that. Washington has carved out some exceptions over the years to this rule, but it still exists and was used by the City in this case.

John (jtrusso's) comments are close, but I don't quite agree. As to the City, Corbitt's estate probably did not have the facts needed to establish one of those public duty exceptions and therefore did not feel it worthwhile to appeal that ruling as to the City. The court's opinion states that the trial court's dismissal of the City was not appealed.

Also, the case did not turn on whether Corbitt's own negligence caused the accident - this was a "survivability" case, where the plaintiff sues for damages caused by the failure of the responders to prevent further injury after the initial event (sort of like the seatbelt "enhanced injury" cases, where some bum driving the other car causes the accident, but the injured person sues the manufacturer of the car they were riding in, claiming that bad seatbelt design caused them enhanced injuries...). The Estate's theory here was that Corbitt survived the impact, but suffered much worse injuries - and died from - the post-crash fire.

[FlyinFife]

Originally Posted by Rutus

The Estate's theory here was that Corbitt survived the impact, but suffered much worse injuries - and died from - the post-crash fire.

I don't know about this accident and I must add upfront that I am saddened that it happened at all. That aside, did the post-mortem show that he was killed by the accident or post-accident fire? Thanks.