Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Give Flight School and its President a One-way Ticket to Trial

In Al-Khawaldeh v. Tackett, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217892 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2021), the Court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that a flight school providing training to foreign military pilots through an Army contract and its president not escape a suit brought by the parents of a student pilot killed in a helicopter crash. The essence of the claim by the deceased flight student’s parents was that the instructor struck power lines while hot-dogging. They alleged that Utility Aviation, Inc. and its president were vicariously liable for the flight instructor’s negligence and directly liable for negligent hiring. The magistrate judge addressed a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and cross-motions for summary judgment.

The defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that Utility’s parent, which held the contract with the Army and could no longer be sued because the limitations period had passed, was an indispensable party and for summary judgment on the bases of the government contractor defense and absence of duty. The plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the defendants’ government contractor and contributory negligence defenses.

The indispensable party argument was that Utility’s president had a contract for indemnity from Utility’s parent and that the parent company’s rights would be impaired if it were not a party to the case. The magistrate judge rejected this argument, citing authority for the proposition that rights of indemnity or reimbursement from an absent party do not make that party indispensable.

The lack of duty argument was that the parent company had the contract with the Army and it, not Utility, owed duties to the flight student. The Court reviewed the record and found evidence sufficient to support a finding that Utility and its president were significantly involved in the employment of the flight instructor and the training. Similarly, the magistrate judge found fact issues on the government contractor defense, because there was competing evidence as to whether the instructor conformed to government specifications, and on the contributory negligence defense, noting that negligence usually is a jury question. Because there were genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment was inappropriate.

[View source.]