13.07.2015 Views

Karayanni.FN023.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno.pdf - The University of ...

Karayanni.FN023.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno.pdf - The University of ...

Karayanni.FN023.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno.pdf - The University of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. v. REYNO235 Opinion <strong>of</strong> the CourtBlackpool to Perth. <strong>The</strong> pilot and five passengers werekilled instantly. <strong>The</strong> decedents were all Scottish subjectsand residents, as are their heirs and next <strong>of</strong> kin. <strong>The</strong>re wereno eyewitnesses to the accident. At the time <strong>of</strong> the crashthe plane was subject to Scottish air traffic control.<strong>The</strong> aircraft, a twin-engine Piper Aztec, was manufacturedin Pennsylvania by petitioner Piper <strong>Aircraft</strong> Co. (Piper).<strong>The</strong> propellers were manufactured in Ohio by petitionerHartzell Propeller, Inc. (Hartzell). At the time <strong>of</strong> the crashthe aircraft was registered in Great Britain and was ownedand maintained by Air Navigation and Trading Co., Ltd. (AirNavigation). It was operated by McDonald Aviation, Ltd.(McDonald), a Scottish air taxi service. Both Air Navigationand McDonald were organized in the United Kingdom. <strong>The</strong>wreckage <strong>of</strong> the plane is now in a hangar in Farnsborough,England.<strong>The</strong> British Department <strong>of</strong> Trade investigated the accidentshortly after it occurred. A preliminary report found thatthe plane crashed after developing a spin, and suggested thatmechanical failure in the plane or the propeller was responsible.At Hartzell's request, this report was reviewed by athree-member Review Board, which held a 9-day adversaryhearing attended by all interested parties. <strong>The</strong> ReviewBoard found no evidence <strong>of</strong> defective equipment and indicatedthat pilot error may have contributed to the accident.<strong>The</strong> pilot, who had obtained his commercial pilot's licenseonly three months earlier, was flying over high ground at analtitude considerably lower than the minimum height requiredby his company's operations manual.In July 1977, a California probate court appointed respondentGaynell <strong>Reyno</strong> administratrix <strong>of</strong> the estates <strong>of</strong> the fivepassengers. <strong>Reyno</strong> is not related to and does not know any<strong>of</strong> the decedents or their survivors; she was a legal secretaryto the attorney who filed this lawsuit. Several days afterher appointment, <strong>Reyno</strong> commenced separate wrongful-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!