Daily Dicta: In Air Crash Suit, Jury Sides with Nixon Peabody and Akerman Client Daher-Socata
For Daher-Socata, a French aircraft company that traces its roots to 1911, the case wasn't about the money. If its $4 million private plane was deemed unsafe, it could destroy the brand.
November 21, 2018 at 11:58 AM
7 minute read
Here's how much Nixon Peabody partner Joseph Ortego and Akerman partner Michael Marsh believed that their client, aircraft manufacturer Daher-Socata Aerospace, makes a product that is safe.
With a test pilot, they got in a single-engine Socata TBM 850, went up to 6,000 feet, flew crookedly until the engine fuel cut off—and the plane's engine died.
Gulp.
That's what happened to Blaine McCaleb III and his wife Cynthia on October 5, 2014 when they crash-landed their plane on a high school football field near Fayetteville, Georgia. They were injured but survived, and sued Dahmer-Socata, alleging that the plane (which retails for about $4 million and is capable of making transatlantic flights) is defectively designed.
They sued on strict liability and negligence grounds, seeking more than $15 million (reduced from $30 million) for alleged physical injuries, including brain trauma and cognitive impairment.
But on Ortego and Marsh's flight recreating the circumstances of the crash, the pilot simply pushed a button and re-started the stalled engine. Which is what the two lawyers argued McCaleb could have done on his ill-fated flight.
After a three-week trial, a jury in Broward County, Florida on Nov. 16 agreed that pilot error caused the crash, and that the plane is safe and free of any defect.
For Daher-Socata, a French aircraft company that traces its roots to 1911, the case “wasn't about the money,” Ortego said. If the plane was deemed unsafe, it “could destroy the brand.”
The McCalebs also filed a separate suit against the Federal Aviation Administration in federal court in Atlanta. In that case, they alleged that the air traffic controller directed them to an airport about 10 miles away—too far for the plane to make it by gliding—rather than an airport 1.7 miles away and “almost directly in front of the aircraft,” they said.
That case settled last year for $650,000, according to Judgment Fund payment records.
But the Broward County judge ruled that that FAA suit could not be mentioned at trial.
That meant what could have been an easy scapegoat was off the table. Still, for Ortego and Marsh, casting blame on the air traffic controller wouldn't have helped their central mission anyway — “To defend the product,” Ortego said. (He also noted that the plane is equipped with a screen that shows the pilot the exact location of all nearby airports. Presumably, McCaleb could have double-checked it for a closer spot to land.)
Ortego and Marsh—who both chair the diversity committees at their firms—faced off against formidable opposing counsel.
The McCalebs were represented by Katzman Lampert & Stoll, which specializes in air crash litigation and boasts of its lawyers who are also pilots. Last year, the firm (along with Nolan Law Group) won a $115.75 million verdict on behalf of three crew members killed in a cargo plane crash in Afghanistan.
Neither Ortego nor Marsh are pilots, but Ortego said they actually used that to their advantage. “I think one key to the case was not being an expert. It meant we were able to communicate to the jury in ways that made sense to them.”
The duo took a good cop-bad cop approach to the witnesses.
Experts figured prominently at trial, and Ortego said he “came down hard” on those who testified for the plaintiffs.
Marsh handled the fact witnesses, including the pilot and his wife, who was in the passenger seat of the plane when it hit the top of trees surrounding the football field, had its wing ripped off and underside damaged before it landed hard at 100 miles per hour.
A doctor specializing in internal medicine, Cynthia McCaleb allegedly suffered a traumatic brain injury and cognitive injuries as a result of the crash.
Marsh was deliberately “soft” when questioning her, Ortego said. “There was no need to beat her up” on the stand—and indeed, doing so could have been counter-productive. “We did not attack these people.”
Instead, the defense relied on its own experts, including one who also investigated the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. They also created an animation showing the jury exactly what happened with the plane's yaw damper and gravity-fed fuel system—and the 24 different alarms and bells and warnings alerting the pilot that there was a problem. Daher-Socata's CEO even took the stand to testify about the safety of the plane, which he said he personally flies.
It worked. After just over a day of deliberation, the jury found Daher-Socata was not liable on all counts.
Does the case make Ortego want to learn to fly? It's tempting, he admitted, but considering his skills as a driver, it might be ill-advised. “I know my limitations,” he said, laughing.
What I'm Reading
For the last two years, President Donald Trump's vaunted judicial nominations machine has drawn heavily from law firms, plucking conservative attorneys from elite, white-shoe practices for lifetime appointments to the judicial bench.
His disclosure form shows income as a paid CNN consultant (wait, isn't that fake news?), adviser to a company that federal regulators shut down over fraudulent practices and as the leader of a conservative nonprofit group that repeatedly targeted Democratic lawmakers.
Oracle's lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe contend there is no currently serving administrative judge law at the Labor Department who can lawfully preside over the case.
FAN claims it is one of the most visited sites in Russia, and that by blocking it, Facebook has kept Russian residents from accessing information.
What might have seemed like an easy win for the EEOC was anything but.
Court decisions this year will affect the viability and settlement of nationwide class actions, TCPA cases, statutory damages class actions, removal of securities class actions and more.
In case you missed it…
This penalty speaks volumes about the toughness—or lack thereof—of Trump administration prosecutors.
|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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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