Court Opinion

ID: 9647844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:52:46.033244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:54.170713
License: Public Domain

STEINFELD, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I would hold that Thacker, an owner of the plane, was piloting in violation of the exclusion of the policy. Thacker’s own testimony, which is confirmed by the answers of Hammonds, clearly shows that Thacker and not Ham-monds was the operator. Thacker was asked and answered:
“Q. You were in command when landing the plane?
“A. I had hold of the controls and Mr. Hammonds had access to them from the seat on his side.
“Q. But you actually manipulated it in making the landing until such time as Mr. Hammonds decided you were in trouble and then he attempted to do something about it?
“A. Up to that time I was manipulating the controls, Yes, sir.”
The owners would have us say that one of them could set in motion the events which caused the damage but be free from the consequences because Hammonds took control at the last moment before the damage occurred. This we should not do.