269 F. Supp. 3d 90
W.D.N.Y.2017Background
- On Nov. 15, 2012 a helicopter owned by Haverfield, piloted by Mackenzie Bleth (hired <1 month earlier), struck a nearly invisible shield/tap wire while performing powerline patrol; pilot and an inspector (decedent) died. Flight conducted under 14 C.F.R. Part 91.
- Bleth held FAA rotorcraft certificates and medical clearance; Haverfield provided limited wire-specific training; Bleth had ~2.1 hours flight training and 27.2 hours ground training before being released to do patrols.
- Shield/tap wires can be difficult or momentarily invisible; no cockpit recording or tailboard record exists for the fatal flight.
- Plaintiff (Brenda Crout) sued for wrongful death asserting pilot negligence (vicarious liability), negligent hiring/training, and seeking summary judgment that Bleth was negligent and that decedent was not comparatively negligent.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on the applicable standard of care (federal preemption) and for dismissal of negligent hiring/training claims; court addressed field preemption, federal pilot standard (FAR 91.13), and comparative negligence of the decedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law preempts state/common law standards on air safety (including pilot standard of care) | State/industry standards should apply to fill gaps; state negligence standard governs | FAA/FARs preempt the field of air safety; federal standard (careless/reckless) applies | Field preemption applies; federal pilot standard governs pilot conduct |
| Whether Bleth was negligent as a matter of law | Bleth was at fault and therefore negligent; summary judgment appropriate on negligence | Pilot error alone does not establish carelessness/recklessness; fact issues exist about visibility and conduct | Denied: jury must decide whether Bleth’s error rose to careless or reckless under FAR 91.13 |
| Whether negligent hiring/training claims survive given FAA regulation | Industry/custom standards should supplement FARs for wire‑environment training/hiring | FARs comprehensively regulate hiring/training; state or industry standards are preempted; Bleth met FAA qualifications | Granted: negligent hiring/training claims preempted and fail because Bleth met FAA requirements |
| Whether decedent (passenger/inspector) owed a duty to himself and can be comparatively negligent | Decedent had no legal duty; summary judgment that he was not negligent | Decedent had duty to take reasonable measures/warn pilot; factual disputes exist about his knowledge of lines | Denied without prejudice: duty and comparative negligence are fact questions for jury; court uncertain on preemption of passenger duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodspeed Airport LLC v. E. Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm’n, 634 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2011) (Congress intended to preempt the field of air safety)
- Air Trans. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2008) (FAA centralizes air safety regulation; uniform federal system)
- Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2008) (framework for analyzing federal preemption)
- Havas v. Victory Paper Stock Co., Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 381 (N.Y. 1980) (New York’s reasonable‑person negligence standard)
- Nallan v. Helmsley‑Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507 (N.Y. 1980) (comparative/contributory negligence generally a jury question)