Jury: Textile Plant Not Liable for Plane Hitting Power Pole in Fatal Crash
Lawyers for one of five victims who died in the 2013 crash argued that Milliken & Co. allowed a power pole to be erected on its property that violated a height agreement it had with neighboring Thomson-McDuffie County Airport.
August 20, 2018 at 02:22 PM
5 minute read
After a two-week trial, it took a jury less than three hours to decide that textile and chemical giant Milliken & Co. bore no liability for a plane crash near Thomson-McDuffie Airport in which a corporate jet hit a power pole on the company's property, killing five people.
The trial was the first to address the claims against Milliken, with five more cases pending in Fulton County State Court, including suits by the families of the deceased and from the pilot and co-pilot, who survived.
Lawyers for the family and estate of Heidi McCorkle, a 28-year-old mother who worked for the doctor whose practice owned the plane, argued that Milliken had agreed to limit any obstructions in the easement to 50 feet when it was granted in 1989.
The pole was 72 feet high, and the plaintiffs said the plane hit it at about 58 or 59 feet.
But Milliken's lawyers denied any agreement existed and said the pilot made several mistakes that night, including attempting to take back off after briefly landing. The Hawker Beechcraft Premier was “doomed” regardless of the pole, which remains in place today just past the runway, they said.
Lead defense lawyer Pete DeMahy of Coral Gables' DeMahy, Labrador, Drake, Victor, Rojas & Cabeza, said he did not speak to the jurors Friday evening after they found for his client.
“This is speculation, but I think there were three points” leading to verdict, he said.
“First, the pilot was—in my opinion—fatigued and made numerous errors that put him in a position where the flight was doomed and was never going to be able to elevate sufficiently,” he said. “Second, given the point of impact, the height of the pole was irrelevant, and I think the evidence was sufficient to prove that.”
“Thirdly, I think it was impressive for the jury to hear that those poles had been there for 24 years before the accident and that the [Federal Aviation Administration] had been doing flyovers every two years and had discussed obstructions when they felt like they needed to,” DeMahy said.
DeMahy represented Milliken with firm partner Orlando Cabeza; Stevan Miller and Lisa Richardson of Drew Eckl & Farnham; and Laurie Webb Daniel of Holland & Knight.
Lead plaintiffs' attorney Nicholas Moraitakis noted there were multiple defendants when the case was filed, including Georgia Power Co., the city and county that own the airport, the deceased doctor's practice, the company that owned the plane, an engineering firm Milliken had hired and pilot Richard Trammell, among others.
The other parties settled or were dismissed over the the course of the litigation, but Judge Jay Roth allowed several of them to be placed on the verdict form for apportionment purposes. Moraitakis said the plaintiffs' team made certain the jury knew there were other parties who had been blamed for the crash.
“We knew going in that trying this case against the last remaining defendant presented a special challenge, and the defense did a good job of pointing that out. My hat's off to them,” said Moraitakis, who tried the case with Moraitakis & Kushel colleague Martha Turner; William Stone and James Stone of the Stone Law Group; Joseph Brown of Mobile, Alabama's Cunningham Bounds; and John Clark of Macon's Clark & Smith.
Moraitakis did not speak to the jurors either, “but at the end of the day, I think the jury felt that causation was difficult because of the other parties, particularly the pilot.”
Moraitakis conceded during closing arguments that Trammell had some blame and asked the jury to allocate a tiny portion of liability to him, if any.
He suggested that the jury award more than $18 million in damages.
The jury never got to the apportionment issue after siding with the defense, the lawyers said.
As to whether and how the verdict will impact the pending cases, neither DeMahy nor Moraitakis would speculate.
“I really don't know,” said DeMahy. “All the lawyers involved in these cases representing the plaintiffs are very competent. I'm sure they'll study this case and learn from it. They're not the kind of people who are just going to go away.”
Moraitakis noted that some of the other cases involve different parties, and he is not involved in all of them.
DeMahy said the verdict was welcome but lamented the tragedy it stemmed from.
“This one of those victories where you're glad at the result, but it's still a terrible tragedy,” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250