Facts
- A Piper Lance and a Piper Arrow collided during a landing sequence on June 6, 1979, at the non-towered Burlington, Wisconsin airport.
- The Arrow was owned by Whitman Aviation, Inc. and insured through United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc.; it was operated by Robert Lawn and William Curler.
- The Lance was operated by Dale Baugh and insured by National Insurance Underwriters.
- The aircraft were in the traffic pattern attempting to land when they collided; neither pilot apparently saw the other aircraft.
- The Lance landed on top of the Arrow, destroying both planes.
- The Arrow’s owner and insurer sued, alleging negligent operation of the Lance, including failure to yield right-of-way under federal aviation regulations.
Issues
- Whether 14 C.F.R. § 91.67(f) (1983) (aircraft landing right-of-way) qualifies as a “safety statute” such that its violation constitutes negligence per se under Wisconsin law.
- Whether the evidence established a violation of § 91.67(f) by the Lance pilot as a matter of law, requiring judgment for the plaintiffs.
Decision
- The court held that 14 C.F.R. § 91.67 is a safety statute promulgated under federal statutory authority aimed at preventing air collisions and protecting persons and property.
- The court concluded that violation of § 91.67(f) constitutes negligence per se in Wisconsin when the harmed party is within the protected class and the harm is of the type the rule was designed to prevent.
- The court found the evidence established that the Lance pilot violated § 91.67(f) by failing to yield right-of-way during landing.
- The court reversed the judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and award damages.
Legal Principles
- Federal aviation regulations issued under congressional authorization for air safety may be treated as “safety statutes” in state tort actions applying negligence-per-se doctrine.
- When a qualifying safety statute applies, its violation establishes negligence as a matter of law, rather than merely evidence of negligence.
- A landing right-of-way rule giving priority to the lower aircraft (subject to safe operation limits) is intended to prevent collisions between aircraft approaching to land; collision damage to another aircraft falls within the protected harms and class.
- Where the record establishes an unexcused violation of the safety rule causing the type of harm the rule seeks to prevent, the court should enter liability as a matter of law and proceed to damages as appropriate.
Conclusion
The appellate court treated the federal landing right-of-way regulation as a safety statute and held that the Lance pilot’s failure to yield was negligence per se, requiring reversal of the defense verdict and entry of judgment for the Arrow’s owner and insurer with damages awarded on remand.