Opinion ID: 1264810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The FSS Specialists' Duties

Text: This negligence case is governed by Minnesota law. See Budden v. United States, 15 F.3d 1444, 1449 (8th Cir. 1994) ( Budden II ) (Courts decide FTCA claims under the law of the state where the tort occurred.) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)). Under Minnesota law, [n]egligence requires `(1) the existence of a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) the breach of the duty being the proximate cause of the injury.' MSK EyEs Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 546 F.3d 533, 545 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Engler v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 706 N.W.2d 764, 767 (Minn.2005)). Although state law governs in FTCA cases, because the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), the Minnesota courts have not had an opportunity to analyze the scope of the duties that FSS specialists owe to pilots and passengers. Therefore, like other federal courts addressing similar claims, we are forced to look primarily to other federal cases for guidance on this question. See, e.g., Pierce v. United States, 679 F.2d 617, 620-21 (6th Cir.1982) (relying on federal cases to support the conclusion that FSS specialists have the duty ... to advise [pilots] accurately of known and predicted weather conditions, although the case was actually governed by Indiana law); Gill v. United States, 429 F.2d 1072, 1075 (5th Cir.1970) (citing federal cases in support of the court's analysis of an air traffic controller's duties, and noting that [w]hile principles of Texas law control, federal regulations may impose duties and standards of conduct upon the actors). FSS specialists have a duty to provide pilots with an accurate and complete summary of the relevant weather information. This court has quoted with approval the Sixth Circuit's statement that `[s]ince the FAA has undertaken to advise requesting pilots of weather conditions, thus engendering reliance on facilities such as the Indianapolis FSS, it is under a duty to see that the information which it furnishes is accurate and complete. ' Norwest Capital Mgmt. & Trust Co. v. United States, 828 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir.1987) (quoting Pierce, 679 F.2d at 621 (6th Cir.)) (emphasis added); see also Budden v. United States, 963 F.2d 188, 194 (8th Cir.1992) ( Budden I ) (quoting with approval the standard articulated in Norwest Capital); Aplt. Br. at 29 (noting that the Government agrees that the FAA, through its FSS specialists, has assumed a general duty to provide `accurate and complete weather briefings to pilots') (quotation omitted). These duties are rooted in both the FAA manual that instructs specialists on how to conduct their briefings, and on the reliance that pilots and airplane passengers place on the FAA. See Tinkler v. U.S. by F.A.A., 982 F.2d 1456, 1461 (10th Cir.1992) ([FSS Specialist's] duty arose from both the dictates of the Flight Services Manual as well as the reliance pilots place on FSS briefers.); Moorhead v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Int'l., Inc., 828 F.2d 278, 282 n. 13 (5th Cir.1987) (stating that an FSS Specialist's duties are rooted in both general pilot reliance for the service, and the briefers' manual) (citation omitted). Although an FSS specialist must provide accurate and complete weather information, a specialist does not need to recite verbatim the contents of every weather report before him. See Moorhead, 828 F.2d at 282 (noting that [b]riefers are instructed not to read weather reports and forecasts verbatim, unless it is specifically requested by the pilot). In fact, a verbatim recitation would likely overwhelm a pilot with information, thereby confusing rather than clarifying the prevailing weather conditions. Further, a verbatim recitation would make FSS specialists superfluous, since the rote recitation of weather reporting information could probably be accomplished more effectively through the use of a computer or automated phone system. Therefore, our statement that a specialist must provide accurate and complete weather information does not mean that a specialist must provide a pilot with every detail from every relevant weather source. Rather, it means that the specialist must provide a complete synthesis or summary of the relevant weather information. Inevitably, therefore, some information will be left out. However, as a synthesis, it must be accurate and complete with regards to the information that would appropriately be included in a summary report. The material information must be included, but additional details or repetitive facts may be left out.