Newberger v. Pokrass legal case analysis

Newberger v Pokrass (1967)

The issues in this case are:

Is there negligence on the part of the pilot (Pokrass)?

Did the trial court err in applying Res Iipsa Loquitur to the case?

Was the jury award of $20,000 for wage loss, and $55,000 for pain, suffering and disability to Newberger fair?

RULE of LAW

The main rule of law applicable in the case is Res IPSA Loquitor, which literally means "the thing speaks for itself." The doctrine is applied in situations when it can be assumed that a person's injury was caused by the negligent action of another party because the accident could not have occurred unless someone was negligent. When this doctrine is applied it is not necessary for the plaintiff's lawyer to prove that the defendant was negligent.

The other law applicable in the case is that of "negligence" (the failure to use ordinary care through either an act or omission).

ANALYSIS

It is self-evident that the pilot of the plane (Pokrass) committed negligence while piloting the plane. For example:

The pilot set his course at a very low altitude in an area of hilly terrain.

His altimeter setting was faulty resulting in a flight 170 feet lower than indicated.

He ignored unfavorable weather reports and warnings to stay on the ground.

He went to sleep while flying the plane.

All mechanical failures were ruled out as a cause of the accident by the CAB accident investigation

The cause of accident can reasonably be inferred as human error, i.e., the pilot's fault

Moreover, the facts of the case also indicate that serious injury was caused to Newberger since he was hospitalized for five weeks. He suffered permanent injuries due to the after-effects of burns and exposure to frostbite (he was exposed to extreme cold for 14 hours after the crash before being recovered). It is also evident that defendant suffered wage loss due to his injuries and suffered pain and disability.

CONCLUSION

The facts of the case indicate conclusively that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the pilot (Pokrass) resulting in injury to the plaintiff. Hence application of Res ipsa loquitor in the case is proper. The jury award of wage loss and for pain and suffering is also fair.

PASSENGER'S DUTY to the PILOT-in-COMMAND

In normal circumstances, a passenger (or passengers) owes absolutely no duty to the pilot-in-command in the event of a plane accident due to negligence of the pilot since in most commercial aircrafts the passengers are separated from the cabin crew and would not be aware of the pilots' actions.