Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey case
brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
488 U.S. 153, 109 S. Ct. 439, 102 L.
Ed. 2d 445, 1988 U.S.
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff surviving
spouses brought an action against defendant manufacturer and
defendant service company, seeking damages arising from an aircraft
crash. The trial court (United States) entered judgment, upon a jury
verdict, in favor of the manufacturer and the service company. On
review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reversed and remanded for a new trial. On rehearing en banc, the
panel's judgment was reinstated.
FACTS: After the crash of a military plane, the surviving spouses brought their product liability suit against the manufacturer and the service company, which serviced the plane under contract with the Navy. The surviving spouses alleged that the crash had been caused by a loss of engine power due to a defect in the aircraft's fuel control system. The manufacturer and the service company advanced the theory of pilot error. At trial, portions of an investigatory report pointing to pilot error were admitted into evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the manufacturer and the service company.
FACTS: After the crash of a military plane, the surviving spouses brought their product liability suit against the manufacturer and the service company, which serviced the plane under contract with the Navy. The surviving spouses alleged that the crash had been caused by a loss of engine power due to a defect in the aircraft's fuel control system. The manufacturer and the service company advanced the theory of pilot error. At trial, portions of an investigatory report pointing to pilot error were admitted into evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the manufacturer and the service company.
ANALYSIS: A panel of the court of
appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial because Fed. R. Evid.
803(8)(C) did not encompass evaluative conclusions or opinions, and
thus, the conclusions contained in the investigatory report should
have been excluded. On rehearing en banc, the court of appeals
divided evenly on the question of R. 803(8)(C). On further review,
the Court reversed and remanded in part because the trial court
determined that certain of the report's conclusions were trustworthy
and the trial court rightly allowed them to be admitted into
evidence.
CONCLUSION: The Court reversed that part of the court of appeals' decision, which held that certain conclusions within an investigatory report should have been excluded at trial. The Court affirmed that part of the court of appeals' decision, which held that the trial court erred in refusing to permit the testifying surviving spouse to present a more complete picture his own investigation of the crash.
CONCLUSION: The Court reversed that part of the court of appeals' decision, which held that certain conclusions within an investigatory report should have been excluded at trial. The Court affirmed that part of the court of appeals' decision, which held that the trial court erred in refusing to permit the testifying surviving spouse to present a more complete picture his own investigation of the crash.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment