## Facts

- A plane owned by Cox Aircraft Co. of Washington and piloted by Hal Joines suffered fuel starvation in flight and was forced to crash-land.
- The aircraft was a DeHavilland DHC-3 Otter with a recently completed piston-to-turbine engine conversion performed in conformity with FAA requirements; certification of the fuel system was still pending.
- On December 19, 1984, while returning to Seattle intending to land at Boeing Field, the pilot crash-landed at Alki Point in West Seattle.
- The plane came to rest on Douglas Crosby’s garage roof, causing $3,199.89 in property damage.
- Crosby sued the pilot and aircraft owner for (1) pilot negligence, (2) negligent maintenance, (3) vicarious liability, and (4) strict liability for damage caused by the crash landing.
- Defendants denied liability and filed a third-party claim against the alleged valve manufacturer, asserting a defective fuel control valve caused the fuel starvation.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Crosby, holding both the pilot and owner strictly liable for all ground damage.
- Defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether owners and operators of aircraft are strictly liable for ground damage caused by aircraft operations.
2. Whether aviation (including a test flight of a modified aircraft) should be treated as an abnormally dangerous activity supporting strict liability.
3. If strict liability does not apply, whether ordinary negligence principles (including res ipsa loquitur) govern liability for ground damage from a crash landing.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the partial summary judgment imposing strict liability and remanded for trial.
- The court held that owners and operators of aircraft are not strictly liable for ground damage caused by aircraft operation.
- The court ruled that ordinary negligence principles control, and plaintiffs may rely on res ipsa loquitur when the circumstances warrant an inference of negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities only when the risk of serious harm cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care and other Restatement factors support that classification.
- Modern, regulated aviation is a matter of common usage with substantial social utility and risks that generally can be reduced through reasonable care; it is not categorically abnormally dangerous.
- Washington follows the prevailing approach that aircraft-caused surface damage is governed by negligence rather than strict liability.
- Test flights of modified aircraft are not subject to a categorical strict-liability rule; heightened risk alone does not justify strict liability when due care can manage the risk.
- In appropriate cases, a crash may support an inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur, mitigating proof difficulties without imposing no-fault liability.

## Conclusion

The court rejected strict liability for aircraft-caused ground damage and required the landowner to proceed under negligence principles, while recognizing that res ipsa loquitur may permit an inference of negligence from the nature of an unexplained crash landing.


Crosby v. Cox Aircraft Co. of Wash., 109 Wash. 2d 581, 746 P.2d 1198 (1987)