Court Opinion

ID: 9674115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:17.64086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.637070
License: Public Domain

SIMS, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority opinion and as it will have a far-reaching effect, I feel constrained to dissent. It is elementary that negligence cannot be presumed and must be proved. The fact that the conditions and circumstances surrounding an accident make it difficult, or at times even impossible, to prove negligence, does not in the least abrogate this rule.
Under the uncontroverted facts in the record, the cause of this fatal crash, or whose negligence, if anybody’s, was responsible for it, is left purely to surmise and guesswork. It could have been caused by a latent defect in the plane, or by the passenger, Drahmann, becoming excited and attempting to grab the controls, or in some other manner interfering with Brink, when the latter overshot the runway when he first attempted to land. Of course, this is mere guesswork. But no more so than to say there was sufficient evidence of Brink’s negligence to take the case to the jury.
The record shows it took practically one and a half hours for the plane to fly from Macon to Atlanta, when the usual flying time for such a craft between those two cities is from 25 to 35 minutes. This would indicate there was something wrong with the plane or the instruments by which it was navigated. Could it be said with any assurance that Brink’s negligence was the cause of this unusual flying time between these two cities, or would that only be a guess? Manifestly, it would be guesswork and surmise to say from this record what caused the plane to consume an hour and a half flying time between these two cities.
It could be argued that the passenger, Drahmann, was in control when the plane crashed, and it was negligence on the' part of Brink to turn the flying or landing of the plane over to Drahmann, who was not a pilot and had never flown a plane. But where is the evidence that Brink turned over the flying of the plane to. Drahmann, or that the latter was at the controls when the crash occurred? There is none in the record. Again, it would.be but a guess to say Drahmann was at the controls when the plane attempted to land.
There is a well-established rule in this jurisdiction that while negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence alone, yet it cannot be presumed; and where evidence of negligence is so unsatisfactory as to require surmise or.guesswork as to how the accident occurred, the case is not for the jury but one for the court to direct a verdict for defendant. This rule is both ancient and sound and I do not want to see it abrogated as I fear the majority opinion will. See Hollon v. Greyhound Corp., Ky., 272 S.W.2d 329.
For the reasons given, I most respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Judge CAMMACK joins in this dissent.