The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana's decision in White v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. et al. illustrates the importance of adhering to internal safety policies. In an accident allegedly arising out of an unsafe helicopter landing, the Court held that the pilot's testimony concerning his employer's landing policies established a standard of care against which his conduct could be evaluated, even without expert testimony on the duty of care.
On August 15, 2018, Dwight White, a rigger working on an offshore oil platform, was struck by a piece of scaffolding. A helicopter was landing at the time, and White alleged that the downdraft from the helicopter dislodged the scaffolding. White sued both Dynamic Industries, Inc. (the installer of the scaffolding) and PHI, Inc. (the owner of the helicopter). As against PHI, White alleged vicarious liability arising out of the pilot's purportedly careless and unsafe operation of the helicopter.
At deposition, the pilot testified concerning applicable landing policies. In particular, he explained that prior to landing, he would check for potential hazards or obstacles. If observed, he would make radio contact with the landing officer. If no contact could be made, he would use his own judgment to determine whether the landing could safely be executed. The pilot's testimony appears to have been the sole evidence concerning landing safety, and White did not retain an expert to testify in this regard.
Prior to the close of discovery, PHI moved for summary judgment. PHI asserted that without an expert on helicopter piloting, White could not prove what duty was owed and consequently could not prevail in his negligence claim. PHI cited to a case in which the court had ruled that a plaintiff could not establish negligence by res ipa loquitur because the standard of care required of a pilot is outside of the knowledge of an average layperson and consequently requires expert testimony.
The Court agreed that expert testimony is generally necessary to establish the duties owed by a professional, including a pilot. However, it held that an expert was unnecessary here and denied summary judgment. Critically, the Court held that testimony of PHI's pilot could establish the relevant standard of care. The Court further determined that a jury could find that the pilot had breached PHI's procedures or otherwise inadequately evaluated hazards in the landing area.
White illustrates the importance of adherence to internal policies. White had no evidence independently establishing a standard of care. Unlike the decision relied upon by PHI, there was evidence concerning PHI's internal procedures and the pilot's adherence thereto. The Court adopted PHI's own policies as the applicable standard of care, against which a jury could compare the pilot's actions. As such, White could prove his case even with no expert if he could demonstrate deviation from PHI's policies. White v. Dynamic Indus., No. 19-9310, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124712 (E.D. La. July 15, 2020)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
