## Facts

- Fred Heath piloted a Piper Arrow 180 aircraft owned by Swift Wings, Inc.
- The aircraft crashed immediately after takeoff from the Boone–Blowing Rock Airport in North Carolina on August 3, 1975.
- Fred Heath, his wife Jonna Heath, his son Karl Heath, and a family friend (Vance Smathers) were killed; a daughter (Valerie Heath) survived.
- Richard Edwin Heath, as administrator of the estates of Jonna and Karl, brought a negligence and wrongful-death action against Swift Wings, Inc.; the corporate shareholders (including Frank W. Kish, Richard H. Kish, and Kermit Rockett); and the executor of Fred Heath’s estate.
- The plaintiff alleged Fred Heath was negligent, including by operating the plane overloaded or improperly balanced, failing to use available performance information, and failing to take proper action when the plane did not climb after takeoff (including use of flaps and attempting a controlled landing).
- The plaintiff offered testimony (including technical aviation testimony) supporting the claim that different takeoff or immediate post-takeoff procedures would likely have avoided the crash.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that aviation negligence was the failure to use the degree of ordinary care that an “ordinary prudent pilot having the same training and experience as Fred Heath” would have used under the same or similar circumstances.
- The jury found Fred Heath was not negligent, and judgment was entered for defendants; the plaintiff appealed. Defendants also cross-appealed, challenging denial of directed verdict motions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by defining the aviation standard of care by reference to a pilot “having the same training and experience as Fred Heath,” rather than an objective reasonable-pilot standard.
2. Whether portions of the jury charge improperly suggested the trial judge’s view of disputed matters (including characterizations of procedures and the parties’ contentions), creating prejudice.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to directed verdict relief on negligence and related liability theories (raised by cross-appeal), given the record at trial.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals held the negligence instruction improperly inserted a defendant-specific, subjective measure of care by tying the standard to Fred Heath’s own training and experience.
- The court further held parts of the charge could be understood as commenting on disputed matters in a way likely to mislead the jury.
- Because these instructional errors were prejudicial, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- In light of the remand for retrial, the court did not resolve all remaining assignments of error and did not grant defendants final relief on the cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence is ordinarily measured by an objective standard: what a reasonably prudent person would do under the same or similar circumstances.
- Even where an activity calls for special skill (such as piloting an aircraft), the standard remains objective; the law may demand the care expected of a reasonably prudent member of that calling, but not a standard tailored to the particular defendant’s personal background.
- A jury instruction that defines the standard of care as what an “ordinary prudent” actor with the defendant’s own training and experience would do risks converting an objective test into an individualized one and may require a new trial.
- A trial judge must avoid statements in the charge that reasonably appear to express an opinion on contested facts or that misstate a party’s contentions in a way that could influence the verdict.

## Conclusion

In *Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc.*, the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial after concluding the jury was instructed under an improper, defendant-specific standard of care for pilot negligence and that additional portions of the charge could be taken as signaling the judge’s view of disputed evidence, together creating prejudicial error requiring retrial.


Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc., 252 S.E.2d 526 (1979)