Schoeberle v. U.S.

2000 WL 186130 (2000)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Schoeberle v. U.S.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2000 WL 186130 (2000)

Facts

Roy Leiske was the pilot of a Cessna 421 (the Cessna), a small airplane. The Cessna was owned and operated by Monarch Aviation Services (Monarch) (defendant), a Wisconsin corporation. On April 29, 1996, Roy was flying Andrew Schoeberle and another passenger from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and then back. The Cessna had mechanical trouble on the way to Cedar Rapids, so Signature Flight Support Corporation (Signature) (defendant) performed maintenance on the Cessna at the Cedar Rapids airport. Both Signature and Roy then determined the Cessna was airworthy, and Roy took off for Milwaukee with his passengers. The Cessna’s problems continued. While in airspace controlled by the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center, staffed with Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controllers (air traffic control), Roy contacted air traffic control, who directed him not to land at the Iowa Monticello airport, which was 6.5 miles away, because it was not properly equipped for the Cessna, and instead directed Roy to go to an airport 18 miles away. The Cessna crashed on a farm after traveling 7.5 miles, killing everyone aboard. Air traffic control was wrong that the Monticello airport was not equipped for the Cessna, and the Cessna would have likely safely made it to the Monticello airport without air traffic control’s mistake. Mary Leiske, Roy’s wife, and Kevin Leiske (collectively, the Leiske plaintiffs) and Mary C. Schoeberle, individually and representing her husband Andrew’s estate (collectively, the Schoeberle plaintiffs), filed suit in Illinois federal district court against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging air traffic control was negligent; the suit also alleged negligence claims against Signature. All the decedents and their survivors were Wisconsin residents. The Schoeberle plaintiffs also asserted state common-law claims against Monarch and the Leiske estate. The parties disagreed about the law to apply to (1) the liability of Monarch and the Leiske estate to the Schoeberle plaintiffs; (2) the liability of the United States under the FTCA to the Leiske plaintiffs; and (3) the compensatory and punitive damages. The Schoeberle plaintiffs moved for a choice-of-law determination.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Schenkier, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership