D was a pilot involved in a plane crash that killed his child, his wife (P), and one other person.
D was observed loading and reloading the passengers and luggage before takeoff.
D taxied down the runway and took off, but the plane did not get far off of the ground.
Testimony was introduced at trial that the pilot should have used his flaps during takeoff in order to fly safely.
P's estate sued D in negligence.
Trial court offered instruction that D must act with the ordinary care and caution as an ordinary pilot having the same experience as D.
Procedural History:
Trial court found D not liable.
COA NC reversed, remanded for new trial.
Issues:
What is the appropriate standard of care in negligence cases involving pilots (professionals, in general)?
Holding/Rule:
For pilots (and professionals, in general), the appropriate standard of car in negligence cases is the ordinary care of an ordinary pilot (professional).
Reasoning:
The reasonably prudent man standard is constant for normal people but differs when used in cases involving professionals.
The professional standard must remain an objective standard.
Objective standards avoid the evil of imposing different standards on different people in the same profession.
The instructions in this case are misleading; the jury should not consider D's own particular training and experience in determining requisite behavior.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
Can't say average professional (since that would say the conduct must be better than half of professionals out there). Have to say ordinary.
