Case Title: JOHNSON v NORTHWEST ORIENT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-401

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN 1982 TERRY G . JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES and HAROLD LEINES, Station Manager, Defendant and Respondent Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable James Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Terry G. Johnson, Pro Se, Lolo, Montana For Respondent: Boone, Karlberg and Haddon, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 11, 1982 Decided: #(( 8'8 Filed: MAR 2 5 1982 V Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrisorl d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f T e r r y J o h n s o n s u e d N o r t h w e s t O r i e n t A i r l i n e s ( N o r t h w e s t ) f o r c a n c e l i n g a B i l l i n g s - M i s s o u l a f l i g h t . The F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r M i s s o u l a C o u n t y , e n t e r e d summary j u d g m e n t f o r N o r t h w e s t . T h e p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . On December 1 2 , 1979, p l a i n t i f f b o u g h t a round t r i p M i s s o u l a - B i l l i n g s t i c k e t from N o r t h w e s t . On December 22, 1 9 7 9 , p l a i n t i f f ' s sckieduled r e t u r n d a t e , N o r t h w e s t i s s u e d t h e p l a i n t i f f a b o a r d i n g p a s s f o r t h e B i l l i n g s - G r e a t F a l l s - Iviissoula-Spokane £1 i g h t . B u t , w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s a t t a k e - o f f t i m e , 9:50 a.m., p r e v e n t e d N o r t h w e s t from l a n d i n g i n M i s s o u l a . T h e r e f o r e , a l l M i s s o u l a p a s s e n g e r s were p l a c e d on a B i l l i n g s - H e l e n a f l i g h t and were t h e n t a k e n by b u s from Helena t o M i s s o u l a . P l a i n t i f f was o f f e r e d a c h e c k f o r $29.70, t h e s a v i n g s on h i s a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The c h e c k was r e t u r n e d s e v e r a l months l a t e r , a f t e r t h i s s u i t was i n i t i a t e d . P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s he a r r i v e d horne e i g h t h o u r s l a t e b e c a u s e of t h e f l i g h t c a n c e l l a t i o n . He e a r n e d $153,000 i n 1 9 7 9 , working 3,ld00 h o u r s a t $50 a n h o u r . A s a n i n s u r a n c e a g e n t , he c l a i m s h i s weekends a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y l u c r a t i v e , e a r n i n g him more t h a n $100 a n hour f o r t e n h o u r s a d a y . H e is s e e k i n g $1,000 damages f o r t h e l o s s o f a ten-hour d a y and $122 r e f u n d f o r h i s p l a n e f a r e . T h i s a p p e a l r e v o l v e s a r o u n d w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g N o r t h w e s t ' s motion f o r summary j udgment . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e r e were no m a t e r i a l i s s u e s of f a c t and t h a t N o r t h w e s t was e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law. S e e , R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t w i l l b e u p h e l d u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . R u l e 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. S i x i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on a p p e a l . 1. Did w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s i n M i s s o u l a p r e v e n t t h e p l a n e from l a n d i n g ? N o r t h w e s t n e e d s t h r e e m i l e s o f v i s i b i - l i t y and a 1 3 0 0 - f o o t c e i l i n g t o l a n d i n M i s s o u l a . Common s e n s e d i c t a t e s t h a t o n l y t h e w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g p r i o r t o t a k e - o f f , 9:50 a.m., a r e p e r t i n e n t . I n t h i s c a s e , p l a i n t i f f ' s own e x h i b i t from t h e N a t i o n a l Weather S e r v i c e shows t h e r e was o n l y one and o n e - h a l f miles o f v i s i b i l i t y a t 9: 52 a.m. T h e r e f o r e , w e a t h e r c l e a r l y p r e v e n t e d N o r t h w e s t from l a n d i n g i n M i s s o u l a . 2. Did N o r t h w e s t h a v e a l e g a l r i g h t t o c a n c e l t h e B i l l i n g s - M i s s o u l a f l i g h t i n l i g h t o f t h e poor w e a t h e r ? C i v i l A e r o n a u t i c s B o a r d r e g u l a t i o n s g o v e r n r i g h t s a n d l i a b i l i t i e s between a i r l i n e s and p a s s e n g e r s and c o v e r t h i s i s s u e . Tishman & L i p p , I n c . v. D e l t a A i r L i n e s (2nd C i r . 1969) , 413 F.2d 1401. Those r e g u l a t i o n s a u t h o r i z e a i r l i n e s t o c a n c e l f l i g h t s when n e c e s s a r y . C i v i l A e r o n a u t i c s Board T a r i f f , 240 and 2616. Mack v. E a s t e r n A i r L i n e s (D. Ivlass. 1 9 4 9 ) , 87 F.Supp. 113; see a l s o , J o n e s v . N o r t h w e s t A i r l i n e s (Wash. 1 9 4 5 ) , 157 P.2d 728. T h e r e f o r e , N o r t h w e s t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i n c a n c e l i n g t h e B i l l i n g s - M i s s o u l a f l i g h t . 3. Did N o r t h w e s t h a v e a r i g h t t o r e f u s e p l a i n t i f f a s e a t a f t e r a b o a r d i n g p a s s had been i s s u e d ? A s n o t e d a b o v e , t h e f l i g h t was p r o p e r l y c a n c e l e d d u e t o a d v e r s e w e a t h e r . C i v i l A e r o n a u t i c s Board T a r i f f 248(H) d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a d v a n c e n o t i c e t o be g i v e n o f f l i g h t c a n c e l l a t i o n s . There- f o r e , N o r t h w e s t p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d p l a i n t i f f , even a f t e r a b o a r d i n g p a s s had been i s s u e d . I s s u e s f o u r , f i v e and s i x a r e i r r e l e v a n t i f no l i a b i l i t y is e s t a b l i s h e d . I n r e v i e w i n g t h e f i r s t t h r e e i s s u e s , we b e l i e v e t h e r e a r e no m a t e r i a l i s s u e s o f f a c t and t h a t N o r t h w e s t is e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law. T h e r e f o r e , summary judgment was p r o p e r l y y r a n t e d . C o n s e q u e n t l y , w e need n o t a d d r e s s t h e l a s t t h r e e i s s u e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t judgment is a f f irmed. W e c o n c u r : %&4d& C W e f J u s t i c e