Opinion ID: 6337024
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Emergency

Text: The Estates argue that Garland negligently failed to treat Apfelbaum’s situation as an emergency. The District Court dismissed this theory, again finding the Estates failed to show breach or proximate cause. We agree that causation defeats this claim. Because even assuming the controller perhaps should have recognized Apfelbaum’s disorientation, the Estates do not explain how that possible breach made a difference. Once a controller declares an emergency, he must “select and pursue a course of action which appears . . . most appropriate.” J.O. 7110.65Z ¶ 10-1-1(d). In other words, the regulations require no specific action. See id. And the Estates do not explain how declaring an emergency would have prevented the crash. So even if Garland breached his duty, that breach did not cause the crash.