The core issue that is actually discussed in this case is that can a passenger share the responsibility of the pilot in negligent operation of an aircraft. Rules A suit was filled by Pokrass regarding the crash and he wanted compensation for the lost wages and a relief compensation for suffering and pain. The estate of Pokrass appealed the court’s decision. The court explained that in such a scenario the rule of “res ipsa loquitur” is applied that is (the things speak for itself).
Events that have taken place in the near past would determine the decision of the court. Moreover, it means that because a harmful accident has taken place that’s why the defendant is acting negligently. It presumes that the element that caused an accident was under the control of the defendant and the accident can only happen because of the careless act (Gesell, 2005). Court’s Application Newberger, Seely and Pokrass were in the aircraft. Newberger was sitting besides Pokrass and Pokrass mentioned that he was sleepy.
The aircraft was about to crash and Newberger warned Pokrass about that. Pokrass said “I know” and he didn’t do anything and ultimately the aircraft crashed and because of this Seely and Pokrass died. Due to the inefficient and sluggish attitude of Pokrass the disastrous event happened. As far as the application of the court is concerned the court would apply the rule of first things first. The case was awarded to Newberger and he was compensated for that.
The estate of Pokrass then filled an appeal in order to challenge the decision of the court and then the court responded that Pokrass was casual in certain aspects and this result in the accident. Conclusion Thus we can conclude that the court denied the appeal of the estate of Pokrass and the court affirmed the decision of the lower court and awarded the case to Newberger. Newberger won the case and was compensated for its pain and suffering and for the lost wages. 2) The court concluded the case and awarded it to Newberger.
Although the appellants number of times appealed that Newberger was not in his conscious state of mind and he was sleeping and that’s the main reason why the plane crashed. The appellants also insisted that Newberger could have helped Pokrass and then they can avert the disaster. But the court rejected their appeal. The core reason of awarding the decision on favor of Newberger was that, Pokrass wasn’t an experienced pilot and he just owned the aircraft. Although Newberger waked him up but he dint responded positively. Pokrass should have wakened up the pilot and the outcome might change because of this.
In such a scenario where the pilot is not in command, the passenger can’t become the pilot. The passenger can only bring the pilot into its conscious state if possible. However the irony of the situation was that Pokrass was sleepy and wasn’t in his conscious state and ultimately the aircraft crashed. Pokrass negligent attitude was the real venom in this scenario and this sluggish attitude resulted in his life and the life of another passenger. References Gesell, E. L. (2005). “Aviation and the Law”. Coast Aire Publications.