TurboBeaver
Registered User
Northern Maine
...Here are the findings from a famous case here in Maine, of a contractor flying into glassy water
On Harrington Lk, a slick lawyer drug this out from 1966 till 1972 ,and the following is the courts decision. I think the award would have been one million dollars, here is the printed verdict
tJustia›U.S. Law›Case Law›Maine Case Law›Maine Supreme Judicial Court Decisions›1972› Sargent v. Raymond F. Sargent, Inc.
Sargent v. Raymond F. Sargent, Inc.Annotate this Case
*36 Silsby & Silsby, by Herbert T. Silsby, II, Ellsworth, for plaintiff.
Mahoney, Desmond, Robinson, & Mahoney by David C. Norman, Portland, for defendant.
*37 Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
ARCHIBALD, Justice.
The Company owned, and used for business purposes, a Cessna 180, airplane which was flown on floats, and which was usually piloted by Raymond, although occasionally by Adelbert, also a pilot. Whatever hazards are inherent in flying an airplane designed to be flown off and onto water were incidental to Raymond's employment. These hazards would naturally include the surface conditions of the water on which the plane lands, whether rough, calm, choppy, smooth or "glassy." There was no evidence introduced from which a finding could be made that landing an airplane on water, whatever the surface conditions might be, posed any unusual or overhazardous problems to this particular aircraft. Nor was there any evidence from which it could be found that Raymond's capabilities as a pilot were limited by surface conditions, whatever they might be.
Of course we all realize landing the plane in the middle of the lake on glassy water could most certainly have have a poor ending in this case two lives.......... but the court saw it different, as far as I know theynever paid a dime?
On Harrington Lk, a slick lawyer drug this out from 1966 till 1972 ,and the following is the courts decision. I think the award would have been one million dollars, here is the printed verdict
tJustia›U.S. Law›Case Law›Maine Case Law›Maine Supreme Judicial Court Decisions›1972› Sargent v. Raymond F. Sargent, Inc.
Sargent v. Raymond F. Sargent, Inc.Annotate this Case
*36 Silsby & Silsby, by Herbert T. Silsby, II, Ellsworth, for plaintiff.
Mahoney, Desmond, Robinson, & Mahoney by David C. Norman, Portland, for defendant.
*37 Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
ARCHIBALD, Justice.
The Company owned, and used for business purposes, a Cessna 180, airplane which was flown on floats, and which was usually piloted by Raymond, although occasionally by Adelbert, also a pilot. Whatever hazards are inherent in flying an airplane designed to be flown off and onto water were incidental to Raymond's employment. These hazards would naturally include the surface conditions of the water on which the plane lands, whether rough, calm, choppy, smooth or "glassy." There was no evidence introduced from which a finding could be made that landing an airplane on water, whatever the surface conditions might be, posed any unusual or overhazardous problems to this particular aircraft. Nor was there any evidence from which it could be found that Raymond's capabilities as a pilot were limited by surface conditions, whatever they might be.
Of course we all realize landing the plane in the middle of the lake on glassy water could most certainly have have a poor ending in this case two lives.......... but the court saw it different, as far as I know theynever paid a dime?
Last edited: