Lazzerini et al v. Allegiant Air LLC et al
Filing
119
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 112 Defendant Allegiant Air LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (see document for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 5/28/15.(KGM)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Dallas Lazzerini and David Lazzerini,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-12-01738-PHX-MHB
Allegiant Air, LLC,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Pending before the Court is Allegiant Air, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 112). After considering the arguments raised by the parties in
their briefing, the Court now issues the following ruling.
On August 15, 2012, this case was removed from the Maricopa County Superior
Court. John Desch (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, alleging that Defendant negligently
maintained the emergency slides and exits on its aircraft, Defendant negligently
maintained the Constant Speed Drive (hereinafter “CSD”) and the Alternating Current
Generator (hereinafter “AC Generator”) on the aircraft’s right engine, and Defendant’s
negligence in those respects created a risk that proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury.1
24
25
1
26
27
28
Other plaintiffs also filed claims against Defendant arising out of the same
incident but have since settled. On April 18, 2013, plaintiffs Dallas Lazzerini and David
Lazzerini settled their claims against Defendant and were later granted stipulation of
dismissal. On October 4, 2013, plaintiff Tammie Dent settled her claims against
Defendant and was later granted stipulation of dismissal. On January 8, 2014, plaintiff
Richard Dent settled his claims against Defendant and was later granted stipulation of
dismissal. Plaintiff John Desch is the only remaining Plaintiff before the Court.
1
After eighteen months of discovery, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
2
Judgment and Statement of Facts on September 26, 2014. On October 30, 2014, Plaintiff
3
filed a Response to Defendant Allegiant Air, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and a
4
Statement of Facts in Support of Response to Defendant Allegiant Air, LLC’s Motion for
5
Summary Judgment. Thereafter, Defendant filed a Reply to its Motion for Summary
6
Judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7
8
Defendant scheduled flight number 645 to fly from Montana to Arizona for July
9
25, 2010. Plaintiff was aboard this flight. During the flight, the pilots declared an
10
emergency at 20,000 feet and made an emergency landing in Flagstaff, Arizona. (Pl.’s
11
SOF at ¶1, Ex. 2 at 20.) Once landed, an emergency evacuation occurred and Plaintiff
12
exited the plane via the right front emergency slide. Plaintiff claims he suffered injury as
13
a result.
14
A. Facts Relevant to the Negligent Maintenance of the Emergency Slides and Exit
15
Claim.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
It is uncontested that on the date of the incident, the emergency slides failed to
auto-deploy and the flight attendants manually inflated them. Additionally, one of the
emergency slides fell backwards into the cabin instead of outwards onto the ground.
(Pl.’s SOF at ¶5, Ex. 5 at 19.) Notably, Plaintiff used the right front (“R1”) slide, which
did not fall backwards into the cabin. (Def.’s SOF at ¶11.) Mr. Nathaniel Odle, a
passenger on the flight, stated in a sworn affidavit that these occurrences caused panic
among the passengers. (Pl.’s SOF at ¶10, Ex. 9 at 1.) Ms. Arlene Parker, another
passenger, testified in a deposition that although there was a sense of hurriedness, the
passengers were neither calm nor panicked. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 5 at 19.)
Two days prior to the flight, Defendant performed a slide check on this aircraft,
which revealed no issues with the emergency slides. (Def.’s SOF at ¶36.) On the day of
the flight, Defendant’s on-flight crew performed a pre-flight check, which indicated that
all slides were capable of being deployed. (Def.’s SOF at ¶38.)
28
-2-
1
Mr. Odle was seated in the emergency exit row and stated in a sworn affidavit that
2
the emergency exit door in his row was blocked from opening, which caused further
3
panic. (Pl.’s SOF at ¶¶8, 9, Ex. 9 at ¶6.) Specifically, Mr. Odle stated that although he
4
was able to release the emergency exit door lock, he could not pull the door open because
5
its path was obstructed by a seat. (Pl.’s SOF at ¶8, Ex. 9 at ¶6.) Defendant asserts in its
6
Reply that the aircraft had obtained an airworthy certificate, establishing that the FAA
7
had certified the aircraft was safe for operation, which the aircraft would not have
8
received had any seat been configured to block an aircraft exit. (Def.’s Reply at 6.)
9
B. Facts Relevant to the Negligent Maintenance of the Right Engine Claim.
10
On the date of the incident, Defendant declared an emergency landing because of a
11
potential overheating in either the right engine’s CSD or AC Generator. (Pl.’s SOF at
12
¶¶1, 42, Ex. 2 at 20-21, Ex. 22 at 7.) Ms. Elizabeth Vindas, one of the pilots on the
13
aircraft, testified that after she noticed a burning smell, the pilots mutually decided to
14
land the aircraft in accordance with company and checklist procedures. (Pl.’s SOF at ¶1,
15
Ex. 2 at 20-21.) In Defendant’s supplemental disclosure statement, Defendant’s expert
16
Kurt Carpenter states, “the engine was shut down as a precautionary measure after the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
flight crew was notified that a fire and/or heating had occurred in the CSD/Engine Driven
Generator.” (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 22 at 7.)
The Airport Fire Department Incident Report reported that the No. 2 engine’s AC
Generator suffered a catastrophic failure due to an engine fire and that the fire was
“extinguished (in flight) when the crew dispensed both fire bottles.” (Pl.’s SOF at ¶43,
Ex. 20, at ¶4; Ex. 21.) The FAA Incident Report indicated that the primary factor for the
incident was a component failure that occurred while the aircraft was cruising. (Pl.’s SOF
at ¶40, Ex. 1 at 5.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is warranted if the evidence shows there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party must produce sufficient evidence to persuade the
court that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
-3-
1
Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). Conversely, to defeat a
2
motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must show that there are genuine
3
issues of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
4
A material fact is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,
5
and a factual issue is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
6
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248.
7
The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the
8
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
9
the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of
10
material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the nonmoving
11
party would bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party may carry its initial
12
burden of production under Rule 56(a) by producing “evidence negating an essential
13
element of the nonmoving party’s case,” or by showing, “after suitable discovery,” that
14
the “nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim
15
or defense to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at
16
1105-06.
When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(a), the nonmoving
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
party must produce evidence to support its claim or defense by more than simply showing
“there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Where the record, taken as a whole,
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine
issue of material fact for trial. See id. The nonmoving party’s evidence is presumed to
be true and all inferences from the evidence are drawn in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. See Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of North America, 815 F.2d 1285, 1289 (9th
Cir. 1987). If the nonmoving party produces direct evidence of a genuine issue of
material fact, the motion for summary judgment is denied. See id.
\\\
\\\
28
-4-
1
2
DISCUSSION
A. Whether Plaintiff Offers Contravening Evidence in His Response.
3
Defendant claims that Plaintiff fails to dispute certain facts and argues that the
4
Court should presume these undisputed facts as true under Rule 56(c) of the Arizona
5
Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Defendant argues the following three facts should
6
be presumed true: (1) there is no evidence of problems with the CSD or discrepancies
7
with the aircraft service records; (2) there is no evidence that would indicate an issue with
8
the CSD, engine, or generator for 30 days prior to the date of the incident; and (3) slide
9
issues may not have been discovered because their actual deployment did not occur until
10
the day of the flight.
11
Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the Court considers the three facts
12
true because Plaintiff fails to dispute them. However, “even if there is no factual dispute,
13
where possible inferences to be drawn from the circumstances are conflicting, summary
14
judgment is unwarranted.” Morelos v. Morelos, 631 P.2d 136, 137 (Ariz. App. 1981).
15
Thus, even if these facts are undisputed, inferences from these facts and other facts may
16
still establish a genuine issue of material fact. Furthermore, Plaintiff offers contravening
17
18
19
20
21
22
evidence in response to different facts. 2
B. Whether Plaintiff Concedes that the Flight Crew Was Not Negligent.
Defendant contends it is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the flight
crew’s alleged negligence in its evacuation of the plane. Defendant asserts that the flight
crew followed protocol and procedures, and that Plaintiff does not allege any facts
sufficient to establish the crew’s negligence. Plaintiff does not address this assertion in
23
2
24
25
26
27
28
As part of Plaintiff’s evidence, Plaintiff submits the affidavit of Leonard Swope.
Mr. Swope was formerly a Principal Maintenance Inspector and Supervisor of the
Airworthiness Section of the FAA and a certified Airframe and Powerplant aircraft
mechanic with experience on large, commercial aircrafts. Defendant objects to Mr.
Swope’s affidavit, arguing it should not be considered by the Court because it is untimely
and comprised of conclusory allegations. The Court, in its discretion, overrules this
objection and considers Mr. Swope’s affidavit, for the reasons that Plaintiff disclosed Mr.
Swope as an expert witness before the expert disclosure deadline, Mr. Swope’s expert
report, in part, was submitted in time, and Defendant had an opportunity to depose Mr.
Swope. Additionally, the affidavit contains expert opinions, not just conclusory
allegations as asserted by Defendant.
-5-
1
his Response. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary
2
Judgment as to the flight crew’s alleged negligence.
3
C. Negligent Maintenance of the Emergency Slides and Exit Claim
4
Defendant asserts there is insufficient evidence of a genuine issue of material fact
5
as to Plaintiff’s claim that the aircraft slides and exit were negligently maintained.
6
Specifically, Defendant asserts there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendant
7
breached a duty, and as to whether Defendant caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant asks
8
this Court to rule in its favor as a matter of law.
9
1. Breach Claim
10
Defendant contends no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether
11
Defendant breached a duty because evidence fails to show the slides and exits were
12
negligently maintained. Specifically, Defendant claims neither the Service Check nor the
13
pre-flight check indicated slide issues. (Def.’s Reply at 5.)
14
Plaintiff’s logic, arguing that just because an accident may have occurred does not
15
necessarily mean there was negligent maintenance of the slides or an improper Service
16
Check. (Def.’s Reply at 4); Kiser v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc., 449 P.2d 637, 640-42
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant criticizes
(Ariz. App. 1969) (stating that an accident by itself is not negligence). Next, Defendant
argues that even if there were a slide issue, it may not have been discoverable because it
didn’t happen until the day of the flight. (Def.’s Reply at 5.) To support that claim,
Defendant points to Leonard Swope’s deposition testimony during which Mr. Swope
conceded that the slide issue may not have been discoverable. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 4 at 33.)
Defendant further contends the seat configuration in the aircraft could not have
blocked the emergency exit.
To support that claim, Defendant points to its FAA
airworthiness certificate, which indicates that the aircraft has conformed to FAA
standards and thus, was in safe operating condition. (Def.’s Reply at 6, note 3.)
In response to these arguments, Plaintiff contends there is genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Defendant breached a duty because evidence shows the slides
and exits were negligently maintained.
Specifically, Mr. Swope testified that the
emergency slides and emergency exit were both of in a non-airworthy condition. (Pl.’s
-6-
1
Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶13.)
2
maintained because Defendant would have discovered their inability to deploy properly
3
had the Service Check been properly performed. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶14.) Second,
4
Mr. Swope testified that a passenger seat blocked the emergency exit, Defendant’s
5
personnel should have noticed the blockage, and the blockage interfered with the
6
emergency exit procedures. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶13.) Plaintiff also claims that a pileup
7
of injured people indicates negligence. (Pl.’s Resp. at 11.) In light of the foregoing
8
occurrences and expert testimony, Plaintiff asserts there is sufficient evidence to
9
reasonably infer negligent maintenance. (Pl.’s Resp. at 11-12.)
First, Mr. Swope testified that the slides were negligently
10
Under Arizona law, proof of the following elements are necessary to maintain a
11
negligence claim: a legal duty, a breach of that duty, and actual injury proximately caused
12
by that breach. Flowers v. K-Mart Corp., 616 P.2d 955, 957 (Ariz. App. 1980); Patterson
13
v. Thunder Pass, Inc., 153 P.3d 1064, 1067 (Ariz. App. 2007).
14
determines the question of breach. Flowers, 616 P.2d at 967. If the court can say that
15
reasonable persons could come to no other conclusion, then the court may decide the
16
question of breach. Id.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Ordinarily, a jury
The Court finds sufficient evidence of a breach of duty that raises a genuine issue
of material fact.
First, Plaintiff’s expert testimony challenges the adequacy of
Defendant’s Service Check. Specifically, Mr. Swope testified that Defendant would have
discovered the slide problem if they properly adhered to the Service Checklist and
properly installed, maintained and inspected the emergency slides. Defendant rebuts
Plaintiff’s accusation with evidence of a completed Service Check and a pre-flight check
that showed the slides were capable of being deployed. Mr. Swope also testified that
Defendant should have discovered the blocked emergency exit. Although Defendant
asserts that an FAA airworthiness certificate establishes that the exit was not blocked, a
passenger on the plane who tried to deploy the slide stated that it was. Thus, there is a
sufficient issue of material facts for a factfinder to reasonably conclude the Service
Check was inadequate and the slides and exits were negligently maintained.
28
-7-
1
2. Proximate Causation Claim
2
Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support a proximate causation
3
finding. Defendant claims the slide which fell into the cabin was not the slide that
4
Plaintiff used to exit the plane, and thus could not have caused injury to Plaintiff. Also,
5
Defendant argues that the blocked emergency door and pileup at the end of one slide has
6
no bearing on Plaintiff’s injury. Generally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s two-minute
7
exit from the aircraft on the slide that did deploy could not have been affected by the
8
failure of the other slide to deploy.
9
Plaintiff contends that multiple occurrences during the evacuation endangered
10
passengers’ departures of the aircraft, which proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury. To
11
begin, Plaintiff alleges that manual inflation of the slides and the deploying of one slide
12
into the cabin caused passengers to “have to reroute their emergency egress.” (Pl.’s Resp.
13
at 2.) Next, Mr. Swope opines that negligent maintenance of the emergency slides
14
“interfered with the emergency exit procedures.” (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶14.) Lastly,
15
passenger Odle stated that the emergency exit’s failure to open caused “increased panic
16
in the evacuation process.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 2.) Plaintiff claims that as a result of the slide
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
and exit incidents, the panic, rerouting, and crowding, Plaintiff’s injury occured. (Pl.’s
Resp. at 11.)
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, Arizona law requires that a plaintiff
present probable facts from which a causal relationship may reasonably be inferred.
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S., 898 P.2d 1000, 1004 (Ariz App. 1995). Causation is
generally a question of fact unless a jury could not conclude a plaintiff had proved
causation. Barrett v. Harris, 86 P.3d 954, 958 (Ariz. App. 2004).
“Although the
determination of proximate cause is ordinarily for the jury, the court may be able to
conclude as a matter of law that a defendant did not cause a plaintiff’s injury.” Stephens
v. Bashas’ Inc., 924 P.2d 117, 121 (Ariz. App. 1996). Thus, if the factfinder could not
reasonably conclude from the facts that a causal relationship existed, the Court may rule
that Defendant did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries as a matter of law.
28
-8-
1
The Court finds there is sufficient evidence of a genuine issue of material fact as
2
to whether Defendant’s maintenance of the slides and exit proximately caused Plaintiff’s
3
injury.
4
emergency slides may have panicked the passengers as they crowded into the aisle.
5
Increased panic may have led to a rushed environment where Plaintiff and other
6
passengers sacrificed precaution for swiftness. Second, although Plaintiff did not use the
7
slide that deployed into the cabin, sufficient evidence indicates the faulty deployment
8
may have panicked the passengers during the evacuation process. Similarly, this may
9
have resulted in Plaintiff and other passengers sacrificing precaution for swiftness. Third,
10
although Plaintiff used the emergency slide instead of the emergency exit, sufficient
11
evidence indicates that the blocking of the emergency exit may have further panicked the
12
passengers as they diverted towards the slide exits. Here, in addition to sacrificing
13
precaution for swiftness, the diversion of more traffic may have altered the volume of
14
passengers heading toward certain slides, which may have caused congestion and
15
increased danger. Although there are different views of the level of panic reached by the
16
passengers on the plane, a factfinder could reasonably find that the malfunctions created a
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
First, there is sufficient evidence indicating that manual inflation of the
dangerous evacuation. Thus, the Court finds a genuine issue of material fact regarding
proximate causation such that a factfinder could reasonably find in favor of Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Defendant’s alleged negligent maintenance of the slides and exit.
D. Negligent Maintenance of the Right Engine Claim
1. Breach Claim
Relying on Mr. Swope’s expert testimony, Plaintiff contends two facts are at issue.
First, Plaintiff contends there were engine issues leading up to the July incident. Mr.
Swope states that two overheating incidents in March 2010 and the engine’s excessive oil
consumption both indicate engine problems existed prior to the incident. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex.
20 at ¶15.) Next, Mr. Swope states that a defective and improperly lubricated engine part
most likely caused the engine’s CSD or AC generator to overheat. (Pl.’s Resp. at 6, Ex.
20 at ¶10.) Additionally, Plaintiff claims Defendant removed the CSD and AC generator
-9-
1
before conducting post-incident testing, which prevented discovery of the engine’s true
2
problem. (Pl.’s Resp. at 5.)
3
Second, Plaintiff contends the incident would not have occurred had Defendant
4
properly maintained the engine. Mr. Swope states that a correctly performed routine
5
maintenance check would have revealed the engine problems. (Pl.’s Resp. at 5.) Mr.
6
Swope also states that the records show “an abnormally large number of instances of
7
overheating of the CSD requiring oil service” indicating Defendant’s negligent
8
maintenance of the engine. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶9.) Mr. Swope adds that Defendant’s
9
records should have provided, among other things, important information on oil
10
additions. (Pl.’s Resp. at 6.) Moreover, Mr. Swope determined that the engine sustained
11
overheating issues when attached to a different aircraft. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶11.) Mr.
12
Swope concludes that Defendant negligently treated the engine problem by adding more
13
oil where repair or replacement of the defective engine part was needed. (Pl.’s Resp. at 6;
14
Ex. 20 at ¶¶9, 10.)
15
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence of breach. (Def.’s Reply at 8.)
16
Defendant argues Mr. Swope’s affidavit fails to indicate engine issues or negligent
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
maintenance. (Def.’s Reply at 8.) First, Defendant points out that Mr. Swope’s affidavit
fails to cite any records in support of his theory of events or engine issues. (Def.’s Reply
at 9.) Second, Defendant argues that even if the engine overheated twice in March 2010
as Mr. Swope alleged, Defendant fixed the engine problem because there were no engine
issues four months thereafter. (Def.’s Reply at 9.) Third, Defendant argues Mr. Swope
has no evidence of CSD problems or negligent maintenance because multiple Service
Checks revealed no issues. (Def.’s Reply at 9.)
The Court finds a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendant’s alleged
breach. First, Defendant’s Service Checks and records are not dispositive that the engine
was fixed or that no engine problems existed.
Mr. Swope sufficiently contests
Defendant’s Service Checks and records by claiming that Defendant’s records are
incomplete without a category indicating how much oil was added. Moreover, the
engine-overheat incidents in March are probative of engine problems.
- 10 -
Defendant’s
1
argument that they fixed any existing engine problems because the engine did not
2
overheat for four months since March 2010 is unpersuasive. Despite the absence of
3
overheating incidents between March and July, Defendant does not establish that an
4
engine component problem could not have existed without an overheating incident in
5
four months. Thus, in light of the foregoing evidence and testimony, there is a factual
6
issue as to whether engine issues existed.
Second, there is genuine issue of fact as to the adequacy of Defendant’s engine
7
8
maintenance.
Mr. Swope cites to specific dates on which the right engine’s CSD
9
experienced overheating or other issues. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶15.) Mr. Swope stated
10
that these engine issues indicate negligent engine maintenance. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶9.)
11
Defendant’s argument that the Service Checks revealed no discrepancies 30 days before
12
the flight does not completely remove factual doubt regarding the engine maintenance.
13
Thus, in light of the engine discrepancies, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
14
whether Defendant’s engine maintenance was proper.
15
2. Proximate Causation Claim
16
Defendant contends that even if there was some evidence of negligent
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
maintenance of the engine, there is no proximate causation between the engine
maintenance and Plaintiff’s injuries, citing Ontiveros v. Borak, 667 P.2d 200, 205 (Ariz.
1983). (Def.’s Reply at 9.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff only shows “but-for” cause,
which is insufficient to establish causation. (Def.’s Reply at 9.) Specifically, Defendant
claims the engine maintenance was not a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff’s
injury. (Def.’s Reply at 10.) Ultimately, Defendant asserts, the cause of Plaintiff’s injury
was Plaintiff’s own improper use of the slide, or a manufacturing defect. (Def.’s Reply at
10.)
Plaintiff contends that Defendant proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury because
negligent engine maintenance caused an emergency evacuation on emergency slides that
endangered the passengers. (Pl.’s Resp. at 17.) Specifically, Plaintiff’s expert Mr. Swope
opines that a defective and improperly lubricated part caused the CSD and/or AC
Generator to overheat, which subsequently led to the fire emergency and emergency
- 11 -
1
landing. (Pl.’s Resp., Ex. 20 at ¶¶9, 10.) Citing Arizona State Highway Department v.
2
Betchtold, 460 P.2d 179, 183 (Ariz. 1969), Plaintiff argues that proximate cause is a
3
cause without which the injury would not have happened, i.e., but-for cause. (Pl.’s Resp.
4
at 16.) Additionally, Plaintiff cites Wisener v. State, 598 P.2d 511, 513 (Ariz. 1979),
5
which held that expert testimony may provide a basis from which the causal sequence
6
may be inferred.
7
“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must show that the
8
defendant’s negligent acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” Grafitti-
9
Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix, 167 P.3d 711, 717 (Ariz. App. 2007); see Cloud v. Pfizer
10
Inc., 198 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1138 (D. Ariz. 2001). A plaintiff proves proximate cause by
11
demonstrating two things. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate “a natural and continuous
12
sequence of events stemming from the defendant's act or omission, unbroken by any
13
efficient intervening cause, that produces an injury, in whole or in par[t].” Grafitti-
14
Valenzuela, 167 P.3d at 717. Importantly, for a negligent act to amount to proximate
15
cause, it must be a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Id.; see Wisener, 598
16
P.2d 511. Second, “[a] plaintiff must show at trial that the injury would not have
17
18
19
occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligent conduct.” Id. Generally, proximate cause is a
question of fact reserved for the jury, unless reasonable persons could not differ. See
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 293 P.3d 520, 532 (Ariz. App. 2013).
The Court finds sufficient evidence for a genuine issue of material fact as to
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whether Defendant’s engine maintenance proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury. First,
Plaintiff demonstrates a natural and continuous sequence of events stemming from
Defendant’s maintenance of the engine that resulted in Plaintiff’s injury. Specifically,
Plaintiff offers sufficient evidence that the negligent maintenance of the engine caused
overheating, which caused the fire warning and induced the pilots to make an emergency
landing. This sequence of events led to a dangerous situation with the emergency slides
and panicked passengers. Second, Defendant’s negligent maintenance of the engine may
have been a substantial factor in the continuous sequence of events leading to Plaintiff’s
injury.
Specifically, sufficient evidence indicates that the engine overheating and
- 12 -
1
subsequent evacuation endangered the passengers by forcing a panicked slide exit. Third,
2
but for the negligent maintenance and subsequent evacuation, the plane might have
3
landed at its intended destination without a panicked slide exit. Thus, there is genuine
4
issue of material fact regarding proximate causation such that a factfinder could
5
reasonably find in favor of Plaintiff.
6
7
Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Defendant’s alleged negligent maintenance of the right engine.
CONCLUSION
8
9
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Allegiant Air LLC’s Motion for
10
Summary Judgment (Doc. 112) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set
11
forth in this Order.
12
Dated this 28th day of May, 2015.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?