SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(US)(ca11) 213

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Perry Hodges – Appellant
Versus
United States – Respondent



____________________

No. 22-12316 ____________________ PERRY W. HODGES, AURORA CECILIA SCARPATI RIPALDA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carlo Alfredo Zanetti Scarpati, deceased, MARLENIS SANCHEZ, PEDRO SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, MONICA D. DOMINGUES, Plaintiff, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee. 2 Opinion of the Court 22-12316

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-21893-DPG ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. BRANCH, Circuit Judge: On July 17, 2018, two airplanes—a Seneca and a Cessna— collided mid-air, tragically killing the pilots and passengers in both planes. The Seneca was piloted by Nisha Sejwal, with Ralph Knight accompanying her. The Cessna was piloted by Jorge Sanchez, with Carlo Scarpati, a student pilot, also on board. Both planes were “VFR” aircraft operating under standard visual flight rules.1 The Seneca was departing from, and the Cessna was arriving at, the Tamiami Airport (now known as the Miami Executive Airport) when the collision occurred. The representatives of the pilots’ estates filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging negligence on the part of Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) air traffic controllers at the

1 Under visual flight rules (“VFR”), pilots receive guidance from air traffic controllers in the form of traffic advisories and safety alerts while inside the airport’s jurisdiction, but still retain discretion over routes and altitudes during flight. Compared to instrument flight rules, which impose a “highly structured environment” in which a pilot is in constant contact with air traffic control, VFR grants pilots a greater degree of flexibility. 22-12316 Opinion of the Court 3 Tamiami Airport. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the United States, and the Plaintiffs appealed. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. I. Background 2 A. Air Traffic Control Practices and Procedures As part of its mission to ensure “the safety and efficiency” “of the use of the navigable airspace” of the United States and to “promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce,” the FAA operates a national air traffic control system which services pilots from various facilities, including air traffic control towers. 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101(d)(4), (6), 44701(a). The Tamiami Airport, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, is staffed by FAA employees, including air traffic controllers who work in the Tamiami Tower and manage air traffic that is largely flying under VFR. The prescribed practices and procedures of FAA air traffic controllers are set out in FAA Order JO 7110.65, which we will refer to as the “Air Traffic Control Manual” or “ATCM.” This Order is routinely updated and superseded, and the version in effect on the date of the crash was JO 7110.65X, Change 1. The provisions contained in the 2 We recount the facts as presented to the district court at trial. On appeal from a bench trial, we review issues of law de novo and review issues of fact for clear error. Direct Niche, LLC v. Via Varejo S/A, 898 F.3d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Crystal Ent. & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001)). This standard provides that “we may reverse the district court’s findings of fact if, after viewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top