Newing v. Cheatham
540 P.2d 33, 124 Cal. Rptr. 193, 15 Cal. 3d 351 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a private airplane crash that occurs in clear weather with no apparent external cause, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may establish the pilot's negligence as a matter of law if the defendant fails to introduce substantial evidence to rebut the resulting inference of negligence.
Facts:
- On October 25, 1970, Harold Cheatham departed from Brown Field in a single-engine Cessna 172 aircraft that he owned and was piloting.
- Richard Newing and Ronald Bird were passengers on the flight; neither was a licensed pilot.
- The weather at the time of takeoff was clear and visibility was unrestricted.
- The men had been seen drinking an unknown quantity of beer together at a tavern earlier that day.
- The plane failed to return, and its wreckage was discovered the following day in mountainous terrain in Mexico.
- All three occupants were found dead. Newing's body was in one of the rear seats.
- Investigators found little or no fuel in the plane's tanks, and eight or nine empty beer cans were found in the wreckage.
- Mexican physicians noted a strong odor of alcohol from the remains of Cheatham and Bird, but not from Newing.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, the surviving wife and children of Richard Newing, filed a wrongful death action against the estate of Harold Cheatham in the trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of evidence, plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict on the issue of liability.
- The trial court granted the motion, finding that Cheatham's negligence was established as a matter of law by res ipsa loquitur and that defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk were inapplicable.
- The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding $125,000 in damages.
- Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Defendant, the administrator of Cheatham's estate, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a wrongful death action arising from an unexplained private airplane crash in clear weather, does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establish the pilot's negligence as a matter of law, justifying a directed verdict on liability when the defendant presents no substantial evidence to rebut the resulting inference of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes the pilot's negligence as a matter of law, justifying a directed verdict on liability. The court found that all three conditions for res ipsa loquitur were met as a matter of law. First, a private plane crash in clear weather, absent evidence of external causes, is an accident that ordinarily does not occur without negligence. Second, the pilot, Cheatham, was the owner and sole operator of the aircraft, satisfying the exclusive control requirement. Third, the passenger, Newing, was in a rear seat and could not have voluntarily contributed to the crash; the evidence of beer drinking was too speculative to establish his contribution. Since all conditions were met by undisputed facts, a presumption of negligence arose. The defendant failed to meet his burden to produce substantial evidence of either a non-negligent cause or his exercise of due care, as mere speculation about other causes is insufficient. The trial court also correctly determined that the evidence of drinking was too vague to support the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of res ipsa loquitur to general aviation accidents, establishing that the doctrine's elements can be satisfied as a matter of law, not merely as a question for the jury. It clarifies that in cases with undisputed facts pointing to negligence (like a clear-weather crash), the burden shifts decisively to the defendant to provide concrete evidence of an alternative cause or due care. This decision strengthens the position of plaintiffs in unexplained accident cases where the defendant had exclusive control, potentially leading to more directed verdicts on liability and encouraging defendants to present more than just speculative alternative theories.
