Cattaro v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Allen v. United States

    370 F. Supp. 992 (E.D. Mo. 1973)   Cited 9 times
    Applying the Missouri statute to choose Missouri local law

    Thereafter, he instructed the Cessna to continue straight on across that same approach path. In Cattaro v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 889 (E.D.Va. 1964), a B-47 pilot requested and received permission from the Minneapolis Control Center to drop down to a 23,000-foot altitude and enter a holding pattern in the area the Control Center knew, or should have known, a Northwest flight was about to enter. The Government argued that the air traffic controllers had no duty or obligation to keep the B-47 bomber and the Northwest airliner apart.

  2. Williams v. Trans World Airlines

    509 F.2d 942 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 59 times
    In Williams, Trans World Airlines invoked section 1511(a) to justify a denial of passage on the basis of F. B. I. reports to the airline that the ticket-holder was a diagnosed schizophrenic and should be considered armed and dangerous.

    It has generally been held following state law that commercial air lines such as TWA are common carriers, and as such owe their passengers the duty of utmost care for their safety. See, e. g., Gatenby v. Altoona Aviation Corporation, 407 F.2d 443, 446 (3 Cir. 1968); United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener, 335 F.2d 379, 389 (9 Cir. 1964), cert. dismissed 379 U.S. 951, 85 S.Ct. 452, 13 L.Ed.2d 549 (1964); Cattaro v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 889, 894 (E.D.Va. 1964); United States v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 709, 716 (D.Nev. 1962). But see Krasnow v. National Airlines, 228 F.2d 326 (2 Cir. 1955), holding that under New York law a common carrier of passengers for hire must only meet a standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.

  3. Spaulding v. United States

    455 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1972)   Cited 72 times
    In Spaulding v. United States, 455 F.2d 222, 227 (9th Cir. 1972), we said that "[i]t is not negligence not to repeat information already given.

    A pilot cannot ignore the weather information he has been given or disregard the weather conditions he sees around him.Compare United States v. Schultetus, 277 F.2d 322 (5th Cir., 1960) and United States v. Miller, 303 F.2d 703 (9th Cir., 1962) with Cattaro v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 889 (E.D., Va., 1964). American Airlines, supra n. 9 (landing); Reidinger v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 487 (E.D., Ky., 1971), appeal pending (landing); Neff v. United States, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 420 F.2d 115 (1969) (take off).

  4. Sawyer v. United States

    297 F. Supp. 324 (E.D.N.Y. 1969)   Cited 12 times

    United States v. Union Trust Co., 95 U.S.App. D.C. 189, 221 F.2d 62 (1955) or clearing two known aircraft to use the same airspace at the same time. Cattaro v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 889 (E.D.Va., 1964). However, part 40 of the Civil Air Regulations has defined in very minute detail the precise responsibilities of the air carrier in its operations.