Non-compliance with such mandates, while not conclusive on the issue of negligence, is evidence of negligence. The development of the specifics for the safety training program of the non-aviator do not involve broad policy considerations for which the State Tort Liability Act retained immunity. The State alternatively contends that Nakahira has failed to raise material facts showing that the training program it adopted and implemented fell below the standard of reasonableness. The summary judgment, however, was not granted on that basis. And this court will not consider that contention in this appeal.
Summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial on the merits.