The Honor able Solomon Oliver, Jr., United St ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0516n.06 No. 09-2156 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
DONNA WI TKOP, Pe rs o n al R ep re s en t at i v e of the Estate of

Martin Witkop, Decea sed, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, De pa rtme nt o f D e fe ns e, Un ite d St a te s A ir For ce a nd Michig an Air N ational Guar d, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : GI L MAN and COOK , Circuit J udg es; and OL I VER, District J udg e. * COOK, Cir cuit J udg e. In this suit broug ht under the F eder al Tort Claims Act (“ FTCA” ), Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt D on na Witk op , th e a

pp oin te d p e rs on a l r e pr ese ntativ e of the e state of

Mart in Wit kop (“de cede nt”), a lleg es that wake turbulenc e g ener ated by Def endant United States of Americ a’s military

airc raf ts caused the d ece dent’s floatplane to cr ash. The district c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt in f

avor of United States of Americ a, finding that Wit kop failed to e stablish a prima fa cie c ase of

neg lige nce. We a g ree and af firm.No. 09-2156

W itkop v. United States of Ame rica

-2- I.
On Novembe r 15, 2006, Air National Guardsmen piloted thre e A- 10 Thunderbolt jets on a low-altitude trainingmission t hat took them over Michig an’s Wix o m L ak e. The pilots flew a triang ular route , from B attle Cree k to Wi x om L ake, the n to the Steelhead Military Oper ating Are a (“MOA ”), a

nd, finally , back to B attle Creek. Colonel D avid Aug ustine, the only pilot to remember the flig ht, testified that the jets likely maintained an airspee d of 250 to 300 Knots I ndicated A irspeed and an altitude betwee n 500 and 1,000 fee t. The pilots departe d at 2:16 p.m. and re turned at 3:35 p.m., w ith Augustine estimating that the jets flew over Wix om L ake betwee n 2:3 8 p . m . an d 2 : 50 p.m. Visibil ity

and we ather

conditions were g ood, and Augustine did not observe a ny other a ircra ft betwee n Battle Creek a

nd the MOA.
That same afte rnoon, the dece dent piloted a Maule MX- 7-108B floatplane from a Midland, Mic hig an, a ir

po rt to Wixom L a ke , whe re he int e nd e d to pr a c tic e wate r l and ing s and take of fs . H is plane c rashe d, howeve r, and a witness found the floatplane upside down in the lake. The acc ident
occur red at approxim ately

3:17 p.m., the time at which the floatplane’s c lock stopped.
Three witness es o b s er v ed either the jets or the floatplane or both. Car ol Oullette and Ray mo nd Ba ue rs re c a lle d s e e ingthe je ts at a pp ro xima te ly

3:1 5 p .m. wh e n th e y

re tur ne d to the ir home, situated a f

ew hundr ed y ards f

rom Wix om L ake. Both noti ced the low altitude of the military jets, with Baue rs compar ing the jets’ altitude to that of a “ crop- duster” a irplane. N either obse rved a floatplane. While hunting appr ox imately three mi les south of Wix om L ake, T homas L imbergNo. 09-2156

W itkop v. United States of Ame rica

-3- observe d both the j ets and the f loatplane pa ss overhe ad betwe en 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Acc ording to L imb e rg , th e fl oatpl ane pr oc e e de d o n th e same path a s th e je ts, bu t tr a ile d th e m by a pp ro xima te ly fi ve to t e n mi nu te s.
Ev e r y p la n e g e n e r a te s w a k e tu

r b u le n c e a s a n a tu

r a l c o n s e qu e n c e o f f

li g h t. Re ly

in g on the testimony of Oullette a

nd Ba uers, who rec alled seeing the j ets at appr ox imately 3:15 p.m., W itkop theorizes that the dec edent e ncounter ed wake turbulence created by the t hree milit ary jets—which
we re fl y ingbe low

an a lti tud e of

1, 00 0 f e e t—a nd that th is t ur bu le nc e c a

us e d the de c e de nt’ s 3 :17 p. m.
cra sh.
II.
T h e F T C A p r o v i d e s a

l i m i t e d w a i v e r o f t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r

n m e n t ’ s s o v e r e i g ni m m u n i t y, g ra nti ngfe de ra l c ourt s e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n o ve r t or t c la ims wh e re “ the Un ite d St a te s, if a pr ivate person, w o u ld b e li a

b le to th e c la im an t in a c c o r d an c e w it h th e la w o f th e p la c e w h e r e th e act or omi ssi on oc c ur re d. ” 28 U.S .C. § 1 34 6( b) (1 ). B e c a us e the a lle g e d n e g lig e nt a c ts o c c ur re d in Michig an, that state’s subst antive law controls. Under Michig an law, a neg lige nce a ction require s proof of four e lements: (1) a duty owed to the pl aintiff by the def endant; (2) brea ch of that duty ; (3)
causation; and (4) dama g es. Br own v . B ro wn , 739 N.W.2d 313, 316–17 (Mich. 2007).
The district cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt for the United State s , holding that Witkop failed to identify an applicable duty that the m ilitary pilots owed to the dece dent and, e ven assumingNo. 09-2156

W itkop v. United States of Ame rica

This regulation para llels § 5.10.3 of the Gene ral F light Rules promulg ated by the Air F orce . 1 -4- the e xiste nc e of

su c h a du ty , fa ile d to p ro ve that w a ke tur bu le nc e fr om t

he mil ita ry je ts p ro xima te ly
cause d the ac cident. We revie w the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt de novo, aff irming if the evide nce, vie wed in the lig ht most favorable to Wi tkop, demonstrates that no g enuine issue of materia l fac t exi sts and that the United States is e ntitled to judgme nt a s a matter of law. Village of Oakwood v. State Bank

& Trust Co. , 5 3 9 F. 3 d

3 7 3 , 3 7 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Matsushita E lec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Cor p. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
A. Duty
Be fore the district court, W itkop argued that the mil itary pilots flew too low in violation of Mic h. Com

p. L aws § 2 59 .8 0e and F e de ra l Aviatio n Regulatio n ( “ F AR ” ) 1 4 C. F .R. § 9 1. 11 9, bo th 1 of which r equire airplane s to maintain an altitude of 1,000 fe et when f ly ing ove r a “ cong ested a

rea .” Whil e the state statute and F AR establish a g ener al duty of ca re f or pilots, the United States can be liable only

if its pilot s violated a duty owed to the de cede nt. Fu ltz v . U nio n- Com me rc e As so c s. , 683 N.W.2d 587, 590 (Mich. 2004). The district c ourt found that Wit kop advanc ed no authority for the proposition that the statute or re g ulation were “intended to benef it the decedent or intended to g overn flig ht risks betwee n airc raf t.” W itkop v. United States , No. 08-10886-B C, 2009 W L2242438, at *6 (E .D . M ic h. July 23 , 20 09 ). I nd e e d, the a uth or ity e sta bli sh e s th e c on tr ary : Mi c h. Com p. L a ws § 2 5 9
. 8 0 e i d e n t i f

i e s “ p e r s o n s a

n d p r o p e rt y on the surface ” as the protec ted class, ( emphasis adde d),No. 09-2156

W itkop v. United States of Ame rica

-5- and 14 C.F .R. § 9 1. 11 9 sim ila rl y a ims to p ro te c t “

persons on the ground .” F AA L eg al I nterpre tation 1979-57, 1979 WL395494, (D.O.T. O ct. 3, 1979) (e mphasis added)
. On a pp e a l, Wi tko p p oin ts t o n o a uth or ity c on tr a dic ting the e xpre ss l angua g e of the state statute or re g ulatory

history and, ins t ea d , argue s—for the f irst time—that the pilots owed the dece dent a c ommon law duty of car e. We de cline to addr ess this forfe ited argument. Nie c k o v . E mr o Mktg. Co. , 973 F.2d 1296, 1299 ( 6th Cir. 1992) (par ty may not raise a

rg uments that were not raised be low , e ve n if

dif fe re nt a rgume nts we re ma de on

the same iss ue ); W

hit e v . An c ho r Mo tor

Fr e igh t, Inc. , 899 F.2d 555, 559 ( 6th Cir. 1990) (“This Court wi l l n o t d ec i d e issues or c laims not li tigated befor e the district court.”). Absent an actionable duty owed to the de cede nt, Wi tkop’s neg lige nce
c la im f a ils
. B
. Pr oximate Ca

us e
As su mi ng Witk op ide nti fi e d a n a c tio na ble du ty , s he sti ll c ann ot s a tis fy he r b ur de n w ith
re sp e c t to ano the r e le me nt: c a us a tio n. Th e g ov e rnme nt ar g ue s tha t th e je ts’ re c or de d ta ke of f t ime of 2:16 p.m. and landing time of 3:35 p.m. revea l that t hey did not play

a role in the cra sh. Acc ording to p i l o t Au gu s t ine, trave ling at 290 knots, the jets would have re ache d Wix om L ake, some 98 nautica l miles awa y from Battle Cre ek, at approximately 2:38 p.m. The wa ke turbulenc e simply could not have c ontributed to the cra sh, the g overnme nt rea sons, beca use the jets left Wix om L ake at least 30 minutes before the ac cident occ urre d at 3:17 p.m.No. 09-2156

W itkop v. United States of Ame rica

-6- Urg ing r ever sal, Wit kop contends that a question of fac t e x ists as to the timing of the military je ts’ Wixom L a ke fl y ov e r. On thi s sc or e , Witko p is c or

re c t—Augus tin e and

L imb e rgpla c e d th e je ts over the lake be tween 2:30 a nd 3:00, while Oullette and Ba uers f ix ed the jets’ f

ly over time at 3:15. But e ven cr editing the testimony of Oullette a

nd Ba uers in order to f

it W itkop’s theory , the ca usal
connec tion between a

ny wake turbulence and the c rash r emains “una cce ptably tenuous.” W

it kop , 2009 WL 2242438, at *7.
Def ense e x pert Ge org e Gr eene , who pre viously serve d as t h e FAA’s Chief Scientific a nd Te c hn ic a l A dv iso r f

or wa ke tur bu le nc e , d e te rm ine d th a t w a ke tur b u l e nc e fr om a

n A -1 0 c ou ld r e ma in po te nti a lly

ha zar do us to a

fl oatpl ane lik e the de c e de nt’ s for 1 to 1.5 minute s. B ut L imb e rg , th e on ly wi tne ss t o s e e bo th t

he je ts a nd the fl oatpl ane , o ff

e re d unc on te ste d tes tim on y that th e je ts f le w 5 to 10 minutes ahea d of t he floatplane. Moreove r, L imberg rec alled that the floatplane flew a bove the j et s . Thus, “proc eedingat a lowe r altitude, the jets would have g ener ated wa ke turbulenc e below the level of

the floatplane ” and that wake turbulence would have de scende d and dissipated over time. Id.
Wit kop relies solely on the af fidavit of air

plane pilot expert Dale L ep p ar d to support her theory that wake turbulence cause d the cr as h
. L eppar d conce des that the jets “c ould not have trave led over

Wix om L ake at 3:15 p.m., then flown to the MOA, and then ba ck to base in time for [t heir] rec orded landing tim e,” but speculates that the j ets flew over W ix om L ake a fter the y left the MOA, an opposite r oute from wha t pilot Augustine described. L eppar d Aff. ¶ 15. Whil e L eppar d’sNo. 09-2156

W itkop v. United States of Ame rica

L imb e rgte sti fi e d th a t th e je ts fl e w ov e r him he a din g no rt h tow ard Wixom L a ke (n ot s ou th 2 toward B attle Cree k), and in the same direc tion as the floatplane ; Ba uers a nd Ouellette testified that the jets came from the south (not the east), flew over t he lake, and turne d east towa rd Sag inaw B ay (not south toward B attle Cree k) -7- theory comports with O ullette’s and Ba uers’ s fly over time of 3:15, it conflicts wit h t h e testi mony of pil ot Augus tin e and

a ll thr e e wi tn ess es—L imb e rg , B a ue rs , a nd Ou lle tte
. Ev e n if

we c re dit 2 testimony sug g esting that the j ets and the floatplane fle w over the lake at or nea

r the same time, there is n o e vid e nc e tha

t th e je ts f le w a bo ve the fl oatpl ane , o r w e re in s uf fi c ie ntl y c los e pr oximi ty

to c re a te turbulence causingthe flo at p l an e to cr ash. More over, a lthough L eppar d attacks the opinions rende red by

wake t u rb u l en ce expert Gree ne, he a dvance s no alternative calc ulations of wake

turbulence sever ity

or rate dec ay

and points to no evidence linking wake turbulenc e to the cr ash. Wit hout any supportable ex planation as to how the dece dent enc ountere d wake turbulence g ener ated by the mili tary

jets, Wi tkop cannot ra ise her the ory of ca usation bey ond the level of speculation; the re fo re, h er cla im ca

nn ot s ur viv e the g ov e rn

me nt’ s mo tio n f

or su mma ry jud g me nt. Jordan v. W hiting Corp. , 2 4 0 N. W
. 2 d 468, 471 (Mich. 1976) ( “The mere possibili ty that a def

endant’ s neg lige nce ma

y have been the cause , either theoretica l or conjectural, of an ac cident is not sufficient to establish a ca

usal link betwee n the two.”)
. III
. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.