Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05649/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05649-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2271 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALESSANDRA BROHMER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:02-cv-5649 OWW DLB

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 5, 2005.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Good, West & Schuetze by Steven Schuetze, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs. 

Robert J. Gross, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S.D.O.J. appeared

on behalf of Defendant United States of America. 

Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, LLP, by Kristine

Floyd, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Lockheed Martin

Corporation, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company & Lockheed

Martin Space Systems Company.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. On August 4, 2003, the Court ordered all discovery

Case 1:02-cv-05649-OWW -TAG Document 84 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

stayed except for issues pertaining to the United States then

pending Motion to Dismiss and the determination of that motion by

the Court. The government’s pending Motion to Dismiss was

continued by stipulation on several occasions to allow for the

completion of depositions of witnesses who were located

throughout the United States and because of scheduling problems

of witnesses and counsel for the parties.

2. Twenty-eight persons have given depositions and several

depositions needed to take place over two and three days. There

are approximately 45 volumes of depositions and more than 20,000

pages of depositions. Thousands of pages of exhibits have been

produced. The parties have also performed extensive written

discovery in the form of demands for inspection, interrogatories

and Request for Admissions.

3. In April 2004 the Court vacated all hearing dates

pertaining to the Motion to Dismiss. The government intends to

file a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 2, 2005, with a

hearing date of December 12, 2005 on the issue of special

employment under the California Labor Code which could be

dispositive of this case.

4. Wrongful death of well known civil aviator/action

photographer, age 38, while an alleged passenger in an F16

military aircraft that crashed while on a routine filming in

flight.

5. The incident occurred on July 17, 2001, at

approximately 6:45 a.m. daylight.

6. The incident occurred at Echo Ridge at China Lake Naval

Weapons Station, California. Weather clear, non-contributory.

Case 1:02-cv-05649-OWW -TAG Document 84 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

7. The parties are wife Alessandra Brohmer, accident at

age 39; children: Stephanie, accident age 13; Juliana, accident

age 10; and Sean, accident age 9. The Defendants are United

States and Lockheed Martin.

8. U.S. Pilot Major Eric George negligently failed to

properly prepare for flight before take off by preplanning his

minimum decision height altitude, minimum descent altitude, and

required air speeds in order to be able to have time and altitude

to pull up and thereby avoid crashing into the ground.

9. While in flight, Pilot George negligently failed to

properly and continuously monitor his air speed and altimeter

rate of descent and altitude instruments, and maintain what in

aviation is called “situation awareness,” in order to assure that

he would not go below minimum safe decision height and minimum

descent altitude. As a result Pilot Major George’s negligence,

the F16 slammed to the ground killing the pilot and his alleged

civilian passenger, Plaintiff Brohmer.

10. Plaintiffs contend this is a classic aviation accident

involving pilot negligence and has been known to be described for

many years as “CFIT” (control flight into terrain). Plaintiffs

contend Defendants the United States and Defendants’ pilot Major

George were well aware of CFIT accidents and their causes for

many years before this accident, and to take the steps necessary

to avoid such CFIT accident.

11. Plaintiffs contend that this is a liability case

against the United States. The United States has claimed

Lockheed employee Bromsey failed to give a sufficient pre-flight

briefing before this accident, and as such Plaintiffs have been

Case 1:02-cv-05649-OWW -TAG Document 84 Filed 08/08/05 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

required to sue Lockheed.

12. To date there is no known mechanical failure that has

been discovered as a cause of this accident.

13. Judson Brohmer was a non-pilot. He was not guilty of

contributory negligence. He also was not a special employer of

the Defendant - he was an independent contractor for the sole

purpose of taking pictures during the flight.

Defendant United States’ Contentions

1. Defendant United States contends under the California

Labor Code decedent was its special employee.

2. Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ decedent voluntarily

assumed the risk and should be either barred by the doctrine of

primary assumption of the risk, or proportionally reduced by the

doctrine of secondary assumption of the risk.

3. Defendant contends it violated no duty owed to

Plaintiffs’ decedents. 

4. Defendant United States contends that Judson Brohmer

was comparatively negligent.

5. Defendant United Stated contests the nature and extent

of damages.

6. Defendant United States is willing to stipulate that no

act or omission on the part of Mr. Bromher was a cause of the

accident.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Case 1:02-cv-05649-OWW -TAG Document 84 Filed 08/08/05 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Proceedings. 

1. The accident occurred on July 17, 2001.

2. The United States Government employee Major George

was the pilot of the F16 military plane and was in the course and

scope of his duties.

3. The accident occurred on Echo Range of China Lake

Naval Weapons Station, California.

4. Judson Brohmer died in this plane crash.

5. Alessandra Brohmer was decedent Judson Brohmer’s

wife at the time of the accident and Judson’s minor children at

the time of the accident were Stephanie, Juliana and Sean.

6. Judson Brohmer was not the pilot of the F16

military aircraft.

7. The United States has stipulated Major George

failed to maintain situation awareness and that failure was a

cause of the accident.

B. Contested Facts.

1. The negligence of Major George and Defendants the

United States and the reasons why Major George failed to maintain

situation awareness and failed to pay proper attention to his

aircraft instruments and the training, and why he crashed. 

2. Whether there are any facts to support any

liability on any others besides the United States for this

accident.

3. The duties of Judson Brohmer on the accident

aircraft.

4. Whether Judson Brohmer was an independent

contractor or special employee.

Case 1:02-cv-05649-OWW -TAG Document 84 Filed 08/08/05 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

5. Whether a special employee Judson Brohmer “assumed

the risk.”

6. Loss of earning capacity caused by the death of

Judson Brohmer.

7. The nature and amount of any other economic

damages alleged by Plaintiffs.

8. The amount of damages suffered by each Plaintiff

for the loss of love and affection, care, companionship, comfort,

society and moral support and other elements of recoverable

damages under California law. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. This action is brought under the Federal Tort

Claims Act and was timely filed, including the requisite

government claim. 

4. To the extent any State law applies to the claims

asserted, the parties agree that the substantive law of the State

of California governs. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether Defendant United States was negligent and

the cause of Plaintiffs’ damages. 

2. Whether Judson Brohmer was an independent

contractor or a special employee.

3. Whether Judson Brohmer assumed the risk.

4. Whether Judson Brohmer was comparatively

negligent.

Case 1:02-cv-05649-OWW -TAG Document 84 Filed 08/08/05 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

5. Whether there was any negligence on any other

entity besides Defendant United States.

6. A complete and detailed discovery plan including a

cut-off date for discovery and proposed date for disclosure of

expert witnesses.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. A summary judgment motion is pending. The parties

agree that it would be most efficient and in their interests to

have the court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment,

whereafter, a schedule for the balance of the case shall be

adopted. 

DATED: August _5___, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

brohmer sch con

Case 1:02-cv-05649-OWW -TAG Document 84 Filed 08/08/05 Page 7 of 7