Opinion ID: 665853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Direct Negligence

Text: 31 Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in concluding that Brinkerhoff and Crowley were not directly negligent for William Craig's death. The district court's findings with respect to negligence are reviewed for clear error. Vollendorff v. United States, 951 F.2d 215, 217 (9th Cir.1991). 32 Plaintiff argues Brinkerhoff and Crowley were negligent in failing to delay the departure of the fifth and fateful flight, and, if unable to delay the flight, in failing to remove their employees from the flight. Plaintiff also contends that defendants failed to provide plaintiff a safe place in which to work. The district court found that Brinkerhoff and Crowley were not negligent in allowing their employees to fly on Airfast's 6:00 AM flight. This finding was based on trial testimony establishing that the first flight that left at 6:00 AM proceeded without mishap, and that a second flight that left at the same time returned to Singapore after it encountered fog. The court concluded that Brinkerhoff and Crowley had no reason to anticipate that the pilot would proceed to attempt an unsafe landing. This finding was not clearly erroneous. 33 Plaintiff also argues that defendants did not have prudent policies in effect with respect to transportation of their employees. The district court relied on testimony establishing that Airfast was an established carrier used by major oil companies in South East Asia.... Moreover, Airfast was qualified, certified, and regulated by Indonesian and Singaporean aviation officials. The court concluded that Brinkerhoff and Crowley had no duty to investigate a third party's choice of a reputable and well-established carrier. The record supports this conclusion. 34 Finally, plaintiff contends that Airfast was acting as a common law agent of Brinkerhoff and Crowley, and that its negligence should be imputed to them. The definition of agent is broader under the Hopson/ Sinkler doctrine than under the common law. See Hopson, 383 U.S. at 264, 86 S.Ct. at 766. Airfast is neither an agent under the Hopson/ Sinkler doctrine nor under common law principles. Lack of control is pivotal.