Opinion ID: 268199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 'Wilful misconduct' as a Matter of Law.

Text: 22 In granting plaintiffs' motion for judgment n.o.v., Judge Ritter held that the evidence established 'wilful misconduct' as a matter of law; i.e., that the only conclusion a reasonable jury could have reached was that the defendants were guilty of wilful misconduct. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53, 62-63, 69 S.Ct. 413, 93 L.Ed. 497 (1949); Marsh v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 175 F.2d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 1949); Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N.Y. 241, 245-246, 54 N.E.2d 809, 810 (1944). 23
24 1. As stated by prior decisions. Although it is immaterial to the jury's resolution of the facts, the court in its opinion was in error in concluding that the Second Circuit does not require knowledge that damage would probably result. The charge of the trial court in Pekelis v. Transcontinental & W. Air, Inc., upheld by this court in 187 F.2d 122, 124 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 951, 71 S.Ct. 1020, 95 L.Ed. 1374 (1951), and referred to by the trial court in the present case, was that: 25 'wilful misconduct is the intentional performance of an act with knowledge that the performance of that act will probably result in injury or damage, or it may be the intentional performance of an act in such a manner as to imply reckless disregard of the probable consequences   , (or) the intentional omission of some act, with knowledge that such omission will probably result in damage or injury, or the intentional omission of some act in a manner from which could be implied reckless disregard of the probable consequences of the omission   .' 26 We held that an instruction requested by the plaintiff in that case was properly denied 27 'because it failed to state that the employee must either have known that    (test) was necessary for safety, or his duty to make it must have been so obvious that in failing to make it his conduct would be reckless, rather than merely negligent.' (Id. at 125.) 28 Then, in Grey v. American Airlines, Inc., 227 F.2d 282, 285 (2d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 989, 76 S.Ct. 476, 100 L.Ed. 855 (1956), Judge Medina 'in accordance with precedent' approved a charge requiring 'proof of 'a conscious intent to do or omit doing an act from which harm results to another, or an intentional omission of a manifest duty. There must be a realization of the probability of injury from the conduct, and a disregard of the probable consequences of such conduct. To like effect was the charge upheld in American Airlines, Inc. v. Ulen, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 307, 311, 186 F.2d 529, 533 (1949), which said that it would be wilful misconduct if the carrier 29 'wilfully performed any act with the knowledge that the performance of that act was likely to result in injury to a passenger, or performed that act with reckless disregard of its probable consequences;    the mere violation of those (safety rules and regulations),    even if intentional, would not necessarily constitute wilful misconduct, but if the violation was intentional with knowledge that the violation was likely to cause injury to a passenger, then that would be wilful misconduct, and likewise, if it was done with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences.' 30 See also Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V. KLM Royal Dutch Air-lines, Holland v. Tuller, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 282, 292 F.2d 775, 779-82 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 921, 82 S.Ct. 243, 7 L.Ed.2d 136 (1961). 31 2. As stated by the trial court. After excerpting only parts of the charge upheld in Pekelis, supra, the court concluded that 'the Second Circuit does not' require knowledge that damage will probably result, 219 F.Supp. at 323, as is required by the Hague Protocol-- an amendment to the Convention which is not in force in the United States. Rather, the court indicated approval of a statement that wilful misconduct is 'carelessness without any regard for the consequences,' ibid. and stated that to establish wilful misconduct 'it is enough that he (the pilot) realizes, or from the facts which he knows, should realize that there is a strong probability that harm may result, even though he hopes or even expects that his conduct will prove harmless.' Id. at 325-326. 32
33 There is no justification for the conclusion that the only permissible inference from all the evidence was that the pilot had been guilty of wilful misconduct-- whether under Judge Ritter's standard or under that stated by the prior cases. 34 Defendants argue that a reasonable inference for the jury to have made was 'that the pilot from some inscrutable cause, became confused as to his actual position and commenced his let-down from a point he believed to be the proper one.' If that were so, wilful misconduct would not have been established under any standard. We cannot doubt that a jury could reasonably have thought it so on this record. The evidence shows that the pilot quite possibly thought he was making a proper landing-- in most respects he was, apart from location. There is evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the pilot would not have been likely to have tried to land without having received the requisite signals, thereby violating his clearance. The evidence also suggests that there may have been some radio communication trouble. 35 Against this, plaintiffs argue that, because of the technical and electronic characteristics of the indicators involved-- which they assert to have been operating properly-- the pilot could not have received all the signals which he was required by his clearance to receive before beginning his let-down. Because of this, they say, the pilot must have let down knowing that he had not received the proper signals, or with reckless disregard for whether or not he had. However, all these questions depend upon inferences to be drawn from essentially circumstantial evidence. Those who alone could provide direct evidence as to what in fact led the pilot to act are, unfortunately, not able to do so. 4 One can hardly imagine a clearer case in which such questions should have been left to the jury. See, e.g., LeRoy v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 344 F.2d 266, 271 (2d Cir. 1965). We cannot even say that the pilot's or the airline's negligence was established as a matter of law, much less wilful misconduct. Once the case went to the jury, its verdict should not have been upset if reasonable men could find in defendant's favor, as they certainly could here. Markusen v. General Aniline & Film Corp., 16 F.R.D. 455 (S.D.N.Y.1954), aff'd on the opinion below, 221 F.2d 479 (2d Cir. 1955); see, e.g., Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 652-653, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L.Ed. 916 (1946); O'Connor v. Pennsylvania R.R., 308 F.2d 911, 914 (2d Cir. 1962); 2B Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, 1075 at 378 (1961). 36
37 Plaintiffs also urge that as a matter of law there was wilful misconduct at BCPA headquarters in the failure to instruct pilots as to a CAB letter interpreting clearance regulations concerning minimum altitudes in approaching San Francisco. Even if the letter itself were admissible, BCPA's conduct cannot be characterized as wilful misconduct; at best it was negligence arising out of an honest difference of opinion. However, this theory is not available to upset the jury's verdict. It was apparently not urged at trial and the jury was not charged about it. The trial judge made no ruling on it. The only semblance of support is a statement in Judge Ritter's 'Supplemental Opinion' that from BCPA's failure to excuse its non-production of certain documents it was permissible to infer that the failure was deliberate and that 'such documents would be unfavorable to defendant, BCPA, on such issue (wilful misconduct).' In particular, BCPA failed to produce a file relating to prescribed approach procedures, although an unspecified number of documents in that file were produced. Even if the nonproduction could establish that BCPA failed for some reason-- perhaps a justifiable one-- to tell pilots of the CAB interpretation, as we have said, that could not establish wilful misconduct as a matter of law under the theory of the case. 38