Crosby v. Cox Aircraft Co. of Washington

Hal Joines (defendant) was test flying an airplane owned by Cox Aircraft Company of Washington (Cox Aircraft) (defendant). The airplane had been recently modified. During the test flight, the airplane’s engine ran out of fuel. Joines was forced to make an emergency landing on a garage owned by Douglas Crosby (plaintiff). Crosby sued Joines and Cox Aircraft for approximately $3,200 in property damage. The trial court determined that strict liability was the correct standard for ground damage caused by aircraft. A strict-liability standard meant that Crosby needed to show only that the airplane crash had caused the damage and not that Joines or Cox Aircraft had done anything wrong. Because no one disputed that the crash had caused the damage, the trial court granted summary judgment for Crosby. Joines and Cox Aircraft appealed, arguing that the correct liability standard for ground-damage claims should be a rebuttable presumption of negligence. Under a rebuttable presumption of negligence, Joines and Cox Aircraft would be presumed negligent because a crash had occurred—but they would then be allowed to rebut this presumption by showing that they did everything they reasonably could to prevent the crash. The Boeing Company filed an amicus curiae brief, claiming an interest in the subject matter and arguing that the correct liability standard was ordinary negligence. A negligence standard would mean that Crosby would have to prove that Joines or Cox Aircraft had made a mistake or done something wrong before they would have to pay for his damaged garage.