Court Opinion

ID: 9467281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:44:19.336375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:16.008914
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge
(Dissenting):
I respectfully dissent for the reason that in my view a number of serious errors deprived Eastern of a fair trial.
To appreciate the significance of these errors it is important to bear in mind the nature of the negligence claim against Eastern, its principal defense to that claim, and certain undisputed facts. The claim essentially is that the crew of Eastern 66 should have been aware of the weather conditions at the approach end of Runway 22L and, in view of the wind shear condition, should have abandoned the approach. The defense is that the JFK air traffic controllers employed by the Government’s Federal Aviation Administration, which had jurisdiction over the aircraft as it proceeded on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, failed in their duty to advise it of certain severe wind shear and other conditions near the approach. Eastern contends that if the controllers had communicated these facts to Eastern 66 it would either not have commenced its final approach down the glide slope or would have executed a missed approach. In short, the defense is that the accident was wholly the Government’s fault, and not Eastern’s. Expert witnesses for the plaintiffs and Eastern agreed that had the relevant information been provided by the Government controllers it is unlikely that Eastern 66 would have continued with its approach.
The law is clear that an air controller has the duty of providing current weather information to pilots and warning them of hazardous conditions and that pilots have a right to expect that an air controller will use reasonable care and caution in performing that duty. Yates v. United States, 497 F.2d 878, 882-83 (10th Cir. 1974); Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 373 F.2d 227, 236 (2nd Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 931, 88 S.Ct. 295, 19 L.Ed.2d 292 (1968); DeWeese v. United States, 419 F.Supp. 147, 166 (D.Col.1974), a ffd., 576 F.2d 802 (10th Cir. 1978); Martin v. United States, 448 F.Supp. 855, 865 (E.D.Ark.1977), affd. in part, revd. in part, 586 F.2d 1206 (8th Cir. 1978); Swanson v. United States, 435 F.Supp. 654 (S.D.N.Y.1977); Maloney v. United States, 354 F.Supp. 480, 483 (S.D.N.Y.1972). As those cases illustrate, the failure of an air controller to warn pilots of hazardous weather conditions can be a proximate cause of an air crash. In my view the trial judge effectively denied Eastern the full effect of this defense (1) by his refusal to admit into evidence certain facts previously stipulated to by plaintiffs and Eastern, (2) by refusing to give important instructions to which Eastern was entitled, (3) by giving instructions that were in my view either erroneous or prejudicially confusing, and (4) by certain improper evidentiary rulings.
ERRONEOUS EXCLUSION OF STIPULATED MATERIAL FACTS
Prior to trial, while the United States was still a party defendant, plaintiffs and Eastern had agreed to a “STATEMENT OF FACTS” which included, among other things, the following important paragraphs bearing upon the responsibility of the Government’s air traffic-controllers in charge at JFK airport at the time of the disaster:
“33. For many years preceding the crash, the United States knew and trained its controllers to know that landing approaches in, adjacent to or under thunderstorms, particularly severe thunderstorms, were hazardous because the associated winds could cause aircraft to crash.
56. About 4:01 PM, the United States’ Kennedy weather service office saw and heard thunderstorm activity, officially declared a thunderstorm in progress at Kennedy Airport, and reported that to the Common I Room and Tower Cab at 4:02 PM, but the United States never warned Eastern 66.
58. The Common I Room Controller saw on his radar scope two weather cells, one located on the final ap*83proach course for Runway 22 Left about 2 miles from the threshold and the other moving from just west of the airport toward the final approach course, but neither he nor any other employee of the United States warned Eastern 66 of the cells.
86. Under the United States’ operating procedures, it was required or, at a minimum, should have
a. warned the pilots of Eastern 66 of
(1) thunderstorm or severe thunderstorm activity;
(2) the strong wind warning;
(3) rain or heavy rain and not very light rain;
(4) lightning;
(5) strong winds;
(6) strong gusts;
(7) wind shift;
(8) winds and weather more favorable for a landing approach to Runway 31 Left;
(9) the Flying Tiger 161 report and recommendation;
(10) cells on the final approach course;
b. changed the runway in use from Runway 22 Left;
c. offered or suggested Eastern 66 use a runway other than Runway 22 Left;
d. delayed the approach clearance for Eastern 66;
e. solicited pilot reports from Finnair 105 and N240V, the two aircraft immediately ahead of Eastern 66.”
These portions of the stipulation were, of course, of great importance to Eastern’s defense for the reason that they would virtually compel a finding that the Government’s air controllers were clearly negligent, leaving only the question of whether their negligence was the sole proximate cause of the crash. It would hardly seem necessary to cite authority for the well-established principle that where parties agree to certain facts their stipulation is binding on the parties and to be given effect by the court. Hackfeld & Co. v. United States, 197 U.S. 442, 447, 25 S.Ct. 456, 457, 49 L.Ed. 826 (1904); Stanley Works v. FTC, 469 F.2d 498, 506 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 2750, 37 L.Ed.2d 155 (1973); Masuda v. Kawasaki Dockyard Co., 328 F.2d 662, 665 (2d Cir. 1964); Schlemmer v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 349 F.2d 682, 684 (9th Cir. 1965); Verkouteren v. District of Columbia, 346 F.2d 842, 844 (D.C.Cir.1965). At no time before trial did plaintiffs ever indicate they were not adhering to their agreement. Indeed, on presentation of plaintiffs’ case their counsel in the jury’s presence read into the record certain facts from the stipulation, some of which had been partially denied by the Government, after instructions by the court that “they are to be received just as if you were receiving testimony and they are part of the record, and they are part of the evidence of this ease.” (A — II, 755).
When Eastern, at the beginning of its case, sought to read to the jury other portions of the statement of facts agreed to by plaintiffs, including the above-quoted provisions, an objection was sustained on the ground that the Government, which had in the meantime consented to a liability judgment against it and was therefore no longer a party to the liability claims, had originally denied them. In my view this ruling was clearly erroneous and highly prejudicial to Eastern.
The majority states that the ruling was somehow or other justified because (1) the Government had, before conceding liability and ceasing to be a party to the trial, disputed some of the facts, (2) the Government’s subsequent admission of liability amounted to a “change in circumstances,” and (3) the ruling, if error, did not affect Eastern’s substantial rights because it could and did offer evidence of the controllers’ responsibility. I emphatically disagree. In the first place, the Government’s decision to concede its liability in lieu of remaining a party to the trial of that issue, strengthens rather than weakens the admissibility of the facts relating to liability which had been stipulated to by the remaining parties. Although the Government had partially denied some of these facts, neither the plaintiffs nor Eastern had done so, and they were the only parties to the trial of the liability issue.
*84As the majority apparently concedes, plaintiffs were only too happy to stipulate for trial purposes facts establishing the Government’s negligence. Had the case against both the Government and Eastern gone forward and had plaintiffs succeeded in showing that the air traffic controllers failed to perform their duty of warning the Eastern pilot of the hazardous weather conditions, it would have been incumbent upon plaintiffs to show that the Government’s negligence was not the sole proximate cause of the accident and that Eastern, despite the Government’s negligence, was independently negligent. To permit plaintiffs to escape their stipulation simply because the Government withdrew, conceding liability, is a windfall to plaintiffs, effectively relieving them of that burden. Moreover, once plaintiffs’ counsel offered a portion of the statement of facts in evidence, including two paragraphs which had been partially denied by the Government, fairness dictated that Eastern be permitted to introduce portions of the balance. See United States v. Sommers, 351 F.2d 354, 357 (10th Cir. 1965); Reyes v. Marine Enterprises, Inc., 494 F.2d 866, 868 (1st Cir. 1974); Stranaham v. A/S Atlantica & Tintos Papirfabrif, 471 F.2d 369, 372-73 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906, 93 S.Ct. 2293, 36 L.Ed.2d 971 (1973); Burstein v. United States, 232 F.2d 19, 22-24 (8th Cir. 1956).
Nor can I accept Judge Waterman’s position that admission of the stipulated facts would, “by freezing plaintiffs into their pretrial [strategy],” be unfair to them. If the plaintiffs had decided to drop their case against the Government because, after stipulating with Eastern to facts showing that the accident was caused by the Government’s negligence, they upon reconsideration had concluded that they could not prove its liability, the exclusion of the stipulated facts might be understandable. But here the undisputed record is exactly the opposite: the Government consented to the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against it adjudging it to be liable. To say, as does Judge Waterman, that “From this point forward, the plaintiffs literally had no case against the Government” ignores the fact that the plaintiffs had already won their case on the issue of liability against the Government. Plaintiffs should not thereafter be permitted to disavow the stipulated facts upon which that liability was predicated.
The jury, in considering Eastern’s defense that the accident was caused solely by the Government’s fault, was entitled to have before it either the Government’s concession of liability or the stipulated factual basis of such liability, or both. To deprive the jury of this extremely relevant fact on grounds of accommodating “the plaintiffs trial strategy” strikes me as a curious result, putting a premium on a “divide and conquer” scheme rather than promoting fairness. If the jury had been advised that all parties agreed that the Government was liable, the jury would have been in a better position to appraise Eastern’s defense that the accident was solely the fault of the Government.
The majority’s suggestion that since Eastern introduced evidence with respect to the Government’s liability its rights were not substantially prejudiced is also unsupportable. An agreed statement of facts, unlike evidence which may or may not be credited by the jury, is binding on the parties and must be accepted by the jury as undisputed evidence, 2 Dewitt and Black-mar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 71.09 (3d ed.). Indeed, Judge Bram-well so instructed the jury with respect to stipulated facts that were admitted at the trial (see A-VI, 3252). Eastern’s evidence as to the controllers’ responsibility, on the other hand, might be believed or not, as the jury saw fit. Since Eastern’s entire defense was based on the contention that the Government’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the disaster, Eastern was clearly prejudiced by the exclusion of the binding facts agreed to by plaintiffs.
THE INSTRUCTIONS
(1) Eastern’s Right to Rely on Government Air Controllers’ Performance of Their Duty
In support of its defense that the controllers’ negligence was the sole proximate *85cause of the accident, Eastern requested the court to instruct the jury as follows with respect to the duty owed by the Government air traffic controllers to Eastern’s pilot and his right to rely upon their performance of that duty:
“27. In this particular case you must consider whether or not it was reasonable or unreasonable for the pilots of Eastern Flight 66 to foresee that the air traffic controllers on the ground would fail to perform their duties in transmitting relevant and up-to-date weather information to the aircraft. If the pilots of Eastern Flight 66 could reasonably assume that the air traffic controllers would properly perform their job in transmitting all relevant and up-to-date weather information, then you must decide whether the pilots’ decision to proceed with the approach was reasonable under the circumstances. If that decision was reasonable, then there is no negligence in the decision to continue the landing approach.” (A-I, 317-318).
“36. It was the duty of the air traffic controllers in the Tower at Kennedy International Airport to inform themselves of dangers on or near Runway 22 Left and to communicate this information to the pilots of Eastern Airlines Flight 66 or to refuse clearance to conduct the approach and land until the area and runway was known to be clear of the danger.” (A-I, 319).
“37. It was the duty of the air traffic controllers in the New York Common IFR Room and in the Tower at Kennedy International Airport to advise the pilots of Eastern Air Lines Flight 66 of all relevant and up-to-date weather information that could pertain to their approach and landing on Runway 22 Left at Kennedy International Airport.” (A-I, 319).
These requested instructions were proper and in accord with both governing legal principles and the record evidence. A defendant is entitled to rely on another party performing his duty as long as the reliance is reasonable under the circumstances. See McDonald v. Central School District No. 3, 179 Misc. 333, 39 N.Y.S.2d 103 (Sup.Ct. 1941), aff’d, 264 A.D. 943, 36 N.Y.S.2d 438 (4th Dept.1942), aff’d, 289 N.Y. 800, 47 N.E.2d 50 (1943); Foley v. State of New York, 265 A.D. 682, 685, 41 N.Y.S.2d 256 (4th Dept.1943), aff’d, 294 N.Y. 275, 62 N.E.2d 69 (1945); Allegheny Airlines v. United States, 504 F.2d 104, 111 (7th Cir. 1974). And where, as here, the air controllers had a duty to warn Eastern’s crew of hazardous conditions, Yates v. United States, supra; Ingham v. Eastern Airlines, supra; DeWeese v. United States, supra; Martin v. United States, supra; Swanson v. United States, supra; Maloney v. United States, supra, Eastern was entitled to a charge which clearly delineated the interdependent duties of the pilot and air traffic controllers, and which permitted the jury to find either that the fault lay wholly with the controllers or was shared by Eastern.
Rather than give the above-requested instructions, however, Judge Bramwell charged in relevant part as follows:
“Certain Government Regulations also provide that a pilot has the primary responsibility for the movement of his aircraft. However, before a pilot can be held legally responsible, he must be supplied with those pertinent facts that he is not in a position to know for himself. Those pertinent facts which the air traffic controllers in the New York Common IFR Room and in the tower at JFK Airport were expected to provide included current weather information. The controller’s duty to warn however does not relieve the pilot of his primary duty and responsibility. The pilot has a continuing duty to be aware of danger when he can gather adequate information with his own eyes, ears and instruments. A pilot cannot ignore the weather information he has obtained or disregard the weather conditions he sees around him.”
That instruction simply does not permit the jury to find that the pilot was reasonably entitled under the circumstances to rely on the air controllers’ performing their duty of furnishing essential information and that their negligence in failing to perform that *86duty was the sole and exclusive proximate cause of the accident. It suggests instead that the pilot, regardless of any negligence on the part of the air controllers, must be held primarily responsible. That was clear error, not cured by Eastern’s contrary argument to the jury which obviously cannot take the place of instructions to which Eastern was entitled.
(2) Res Ipsa Loquitur
Judge Bramwell, erroneously in my view, instructed the jury that it might apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to find Eastern liable, advising it that it might infer from the very occurrence of the crash that it was occasioned by some negligence on the part of the crew provided the crew had exclusive control of the aircraft and that the accident would not have happened in the ordinary course of events “if reasonable care had been exercised.” This instruction was quite inappropriate in the undisputed circumstances of this case.
Where an airplane crash occurs without any explanation, a res ipsa loquitur charge may be appropriate. See, e. g., Abbott v. Page Airways Inc., 23 N.Y.2d 502, 245 N.E.2d 388, 297 N.Y.S.2d 713 (1969). But where, as here, it is undisputed that the crash was caused by violent air turbulence and wind shear, and the claim is that the carrier should have known of the condition and avoided it, the res ipsa doctrine has no place and simply does not apply, since it would require the jury to hold the carrier absolutely liable, regardless of its exercise of the utmost of due care. See Kelly v. American Airlines, 508 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1975); Gafford v. Trans-Texas Airways, 299 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1962).1 We cannot say, in other words, that the accident would not have occurred in the ordinary course of events without negligence by Eastern.
Nor is it clear that Eastern had “exclusive control” of the airplane for purposes of the res ipsa charge. The exclusive control requirement insured that the defendant will be responsible for any negligence connected with the accident. Since Eastern’s defense is that the negligence of the air controllers in breaching their duty of care to Eastern was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the jury simply cannot infer automatically that the crash was caused by Eastern’s negligence as opposed to the Government’s. See Colditz v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 329 F.Supp. 691 (S.D.N.Y.1971). In short, had the pilot received all of the pertinent weather reports, the plane may not have crashed.
The majority contends that the fact that other crews landed safely during the storm permits an inference the accident would not have occurred had Eastern acted with due care. An equally permissible inference, however, would be that the accident was attributable not to Eastern’s negligence but to other factors, such as the wind shear or the Government’s negligence. Here, where there were so many plausible explanations for the crash, the res ipsa charge was inappropriate and highly prejudicial to Eastern.
(3) Federal Regulations
The trial court scattered about like buckshot a number of Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. Parts 91 and 121, many of which were wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case, and instructed the jury that non-compliance with these regulations could be considered some evidence of negligence. For instance, F.A.R. 121.133 requires that each carrier prepare and maintain a flight manual for the use and guidance of its personnel and F.A.R. 121.135 requires that the manual contain “instructions and information necessary to allow the personnel concerned to perform their duties and responsibilities with a high de*87gree of safety.” Since there is nothing in the record to suggest that Eastern had failed to prepare a manual or that its manual was inadequate in this or any other respect, the instruction was irrelevant. Nor can the inclusion of that regulation be deemed harmless. It suggests, by reference to a “high degree of safety,” that Eastern may be held to a higher standard than the governing standard of reasonable care.
Similarly, F.A.R. 121.533 places joint responsibility on the pilot and the carrier’s aircraft dispatcher for preflight planning, places responsibility on the dispatcher to monitor the flight after take off until it lands, and puts the pilot in command during flight time while F.A.R. 121.601(b) imposes on the dispatcher a duty to inform the pilot of meteorological conditions during the flight. The error in including these regulations in the charge is that there was little or no evidence that Eastern’s aircraft dispatcher, who was located in Miami, failed to perform his duty. Once Eastern 66, pursuant to instruction from the Government air controllers, proceeded to approach JFK on an instrument flight rules flight plan it became subject to the control and jurisdiction of the Government’s air traffic control service. Nor was there any evidence to suggest that Eastern had violated either F.A.R. 91.5 which requires each pilot to familiarize himself with all available weather information prior to commencing flight or F.A.R. 121.101(a), which requires each carrier to provide adequate weather reporting facilities along the route.
The district court also erroneously submitted to the jury F.A.R. 91.3(a), which states that the pilot has direct responsibility for and final authority with respect to the aircraft. It is undisputed that Eastern did not violate, and could not have violated, this regulation. Yet the court instructed that if Eastern failed to comply with this regulation its non-compliance might be considered evidence of negligence. For much the same reason the instruction as to F.A.R. 121.533, noted above, which simply fixes responsibility and cannot be violated, was error. Finally, in an ambiguous instruction which surely compounded the jury’s existing confusion, the court did not advise the jury that the Federal Aviation Regulations applied to this case but, instead, instructed the jury to determine whether any of the regulations were applicable to the facts as it found them.
In my view it was clear error to instruct the jury with respect to these regulations insofar as there was no evidence in the record showing non compliance. Standing alone, the error might be considered harmless. But, when combined with the other more serious errors, the error just further confused the jury and denied Eastern a fair trial.
The foregoing describes some, but not all, of the errors committed in the trial of this case. In addition there were others which, standing alone, would not be sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. For instance, in his summation plaintiffs’ counsel, after being expressly instructed by the court not to comment on Eastern’s failure to call certain of its employees (Buttion and Biggers) as witnesses, did just that, repeatedly suggesting to the jury, despite Eastern’s objections and motion for a mistrial, that the failure of Buttion to appear personally in lieu of having his deposition read indicated that he either would be unwilling to testify or would be disbelieved.
This outrageous conduct on the part of plaintiff’s counsel only adds fuel to the cumulative prejudice of the other errors committed below. The least that could have been done was to instruct the jury that in view of the fact that the witness was more than 100 miles from the courthouse, see Rule 32(a)(3)(B), F.R.Civ.P., and had testified at length on deposition, it was perfectly proper to offer his deposition testimony which was not entitled to less weight than live testimony merely because it was in deposition form, and that there was nothing improper under the circumstances in using the deposition. See Wright Root Beer Co. of New Orleans v. Dr. Pepper Co., 414 F.2d 887, 889 91 (5th Cir. 1969); 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Pro*88cedure § 2143 at 458 (1970), 4A Moore’s Federal Practice Par. 32.05[1] at 32-34, n.3, Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 73.02 at 616 17 (3d ed. 1977).
For all of the foregoing reasons, I would reverse and remand the case for a new trial.

. Citrola v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 264 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1959), is distinguishable. There, as distinguished from here, it was not known what caused the airplane crash. The court merely held that in such circumstances the plaintiff should not forfeit his right to a res ipsa loquitur instruction by offering evidence of possible causes. Here, in contrast, all parties agree that the crash was caused by turbulence and wind shear. The question here was whether Eastern under the circumstances was guilty of negligence in attempting to land rather than to abandon the attempt or execute a missed approach.