 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mills v. Oberg2/1/2005
al fact "regarding whether fuel was a proximate cause of the crash." But the district court ruled that there was no issue of material fact as to whether Oberg had a duty to inspect the quality of the fuel, simply stating that " o regulations cited by [appellant] specifically required that [respondent] Oberg should have inspected the quality of the fuel during the annual inspection."
Although the FAA regulations do not specifically refer to fuel inspection, appellant's accident reconstructionists reported that Oberg had a duty to ensure the quality of the fuel and failed to meet that duty. And while we make no evaluation of the merits of the reconstructionists' reports, we conclude that the evidence presented by appellant creates an issue of material fact as to whether Oberg had a common-law duty to inspect the airplane's fuel. Therefore, we reverse and remand with respect to appellant's common-law-negligence claim against Oberg.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
|