Opinion ID: 743016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff's Negligence and Willful and Wanton Misconduct

Text: 16 Cessna also claims that the district court erred in not instructing the jury on what it terms negligence per se 3 and willful and wanton negligence. The argument goes that there was evidence that plaintiff violated certain Federal Aviation Regulations and put himself in a situation in flight for which he was not trained. Although Virginia law recognizes that the violation of an ordinance may constitute negligence, Butler v. Frieden, 208 Va. 352, 158 S.E.2d 121, 122 (1967), the district court determined that an instruction would have been inappropriate in this case because certain of the regulations at issue were too general to form the basis of an instruction that this violation would constitute negligence as a matter of law. 17 The court found that 14 C.F.R. § 91.3 (1988) 4 and 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (1988) (subsequently recodified at 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 (1995)) 5 provided for general guidelines and standards of conduct, and therefore, that they could not support such an instruction. 18 Three other circuits have similarly held that 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.3 and 91.9 are too general to form the basis of such a negligence instruction. Joy v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 999 F.2d 549, 558 (D.C.Cir.1993) (§ 91.9); Beck v. Thompson, 818 F.2d 1204, 1210-1211 (5th Cir.1987) (§ 91.3(a) and § 91.9); Rimer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 641 F.2d 450, 454 (6th Cir.1981) (§ 91.3(a)). These regulations do not impose a particular duty upon a pilot, rather, they provide for general standards of conduct. See Beck, 818 F.2d at 1210; Rimer, 641 F.2d at 454-55. We agree with Joy, Beck, and Rimer and hold it was not error to decline an instruction finding negligence for their violation. 19 The district court stated that 14 C.F.R. § 91.105 presented a closer question on whether the court should instruct the jury on negligence for a violation. Section 91.105 provides the basic Visual Flight Rules (VFR) weather minimums under which a VFR pilot may not operate an aircraft. 6 14 C.F.R. § 91.105 (1988) (subsequently recodified at 14 C.F.R. § 91.155 (1995)). The court found that although Cessna put on evidence that tended to show that Ridge technically may not have complied with § 91.105, an instruction finding negligence based solely on its violation was unwarranted because of the provision in § 91.3 that allows a pilot to deviate from the rules in an emergency situation. Given the fact that Ridge did indeed encounter emergency conditions prior to the crash, the court's conclusion was not erroneous and within its discretion. 20 The rule in the federal courts is that instructions are to be considered as a whole. Barber v. Whirlpool Corp., 34 F.3d 1268, 1279 (4th Cir.1994). Application of that rule in this case to the special verdict also supports our decision. While the district court declined to give instructions permitting a finding of negligence for violations of particular regulations, Cessna got essentially the same benefit by the district court's inclusion of questions in the special verdict permitting a finding of negligence by Ridge on account of the conduct about which Cessna based its claim of contributory negligence. 21 8. Has Cessna proven by the greater weight of the evidence that on March 20, 1988, Charles Ridge was negligent in flying the model 210N Airplane 6410N into clouds and/or snow?