Court Opinion

ID: 9856210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:40:59.393559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:34.847606
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
dissenting. If a contract carrier by air does not owe a fare-paying passenger the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation and conduct of its business, I agree the quoted instruction was erroneous and a new trial should be awarded. Assuming the evidence sufficient to support a finding that defendant *305was a common carrier, the issue of common carrier vel non was not-submitted. The evidence did not establish defendant's status as a common carrier as a matter of law.
Even so, I perceive no sound reason for drawing a disbinction between the legal duty owing by a common carrier to a fare-paying passenger and the legal duty owing by a contract carrier to such passenger. Whether the carrier is a common carrier or a contract carrier in no way affects the hazards inherent in air travel. In respect of air travel, ordinary or due care, namely, care commensurate with the known or foreseeable dangers, is no less than the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation and conduct of the business.
G.S. 63-15 relates to collisions between aircraft, on land or in the air. In my view, it has no bearing upon whether common carriers and contract carriers owe different legal duties to fare-paying passengers.
In Bruce v. Flying Service, 231 N.C. 181, 56 S.E. 2d 560, plaintiff’s intestate was a gratuitous passenger in a plane engaged in special-, maneuvers as a feature of an air show. In my view, the quoted sentence, when considered in context, has no bearing upon whether a common carrier owes a higher degree of care to a fare-paying passenger than a contract carrier owes to such passenger. Moreover, it is obiter dicta except as it relates to a factual situation such as then considered.
While there are many cases relating to what constitutes a common carrier, and to the legal duty of a common carrier to fare-paying passengers, Annotation: 73 A.L.R. 2d 346, decisions relating to the duty of a contract carrier to its fare-paying passengers are few and conflicting. 73 A.L.R. 2d 369-371. I share the view that no distinction, “based on whether the airplane company or operator is a common or private carrier as to the duty owed to passengers for hire,” should be made.
In my opinion, the errors with reference to the hypothetical questions and answers thereto were not sufficiently prejudicial to justify the award of a new trial on that ground.
For the reasons stated, I vote to sustain the verdict and judgment.