Heath v. Swift Wings

North Carolina Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceJury InstructionsStandard of CareAviation Negligenceobjective standard of carereasonable prudencepilot negligence

Facts

The case arose from alleged aviation negligence involving pilot Fred Heath and a Piper 180 Arrow. In charging the jury, the trial court defined aviation negligence by reference to what an ordinary prudent pilot having the same training and experience as Fred Heath would have done. The trial court also summarized the evidence as indicating that switching from both magnetos was an emergency procedure and summarized plaintiff's position as wanting Heath to adhere to a perfect exact standard. Plaintiff challenged these instructions on appeal.

Issue

Did the trial court commit prejudicial error by instructing the jury with a subjective pilot standard of care, by summarizing the evidence as implying that switching magnetos was an emergency procedure without full evidentiary support, and by characterizing plaintiff's contention as demanding a perfect standard of conduct?

Rule

Absent statutory alteration, negligence is judged by the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. Although persons engaged in a business, occupation, or profession may be held to the objective standard of learning, skill, and care applicable to that calling, the standard remains objective and may not be defined by the particular actor's own training or experience. A trial court may not submit material facts on negligence to the jury unless fully supported by the evidence, and it may not state the parties' contentions in a manner indicating the court's opinion on the merits.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a negligence trial in Raleigh, Nina Calder sues Owen Pike, a crane operator employed by Blue Span Rigging, after a construction accident. The judge instructs the jury that Owen was negligent only if he failed to act as a reasonably prudent crane operator with the same training and years of experience that Owen personally had under the same or similar circumstances.

If Nina appeals, how should an appellate court most likely rule on that instruction?

Explanation. Negligence is measured by an objective standard. Even for a skilled actor, the jury must apply the objective minimum standard of learning, skill, and care generally applicable to that calling, not a standard tailored to the defendant's own personal training or experience. The instruction improperly introduces a subjective standard and is therefore reversible error if prejudicial. (Derived from Heath v. Swift Wings (n.d.).)