Opinion ID: 3009129
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: These consolidated cases arise out of a tragic airplane crash at Northeast Philadelphia (“the airport”) Airport that resulted in the death of flight student Charles Angelina and his instructor Adam Braddock. The crash occurred when Angelina’s and Braddock’s Grumman AA-1C airplane (the “Grumman”) stalled while making a right turn during departure. Decedents’ estates brought suit for negligence against both the United States of America as air traffic controller (“ATC”) and Agusta Aerospace Corporation (“Agusta”), which owned an Agusta 139 helicopter that was departing from the airport at the same time as the Grumman. Plaintiffs claim that ATC breached its duty of care by clearing the Agusta helicopter for a westerly departure in the direction of the Grumman’s operation and then suddenly and urgently instructing the Grumman to turn right, placing it on a potentially conflicting path with the Agusta; they claim that the Agusta pilots breached their duties of care by making the westerly departure and inadequately communicating their intentions. Although the Grumman and the Agusta did not come close to colliding, plaintiffs claim that defendants’ conduct caused Angelina to ____________________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. experience an involuntary startle reaction when he saw the Agusta, leading him to lose control of the Grumman. Defendants each moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted the motions on August 22, 2014. Because plaintiffs did not produce sufficient evidence that the Agusta pilots breached any duty of care or that Angelina actually experienced the alleged startle reaction, we conclude that plaintiffs, now appellants, cannot support their claims against either defendant and therefore we will affirm the order for summary judgment.