Professional Documents
Culture Documents
White (11797)
Daniel S. Garner (14652)
The Utah Trial Lawyers, LLC
10 West 100 South, Suite 450
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Phone: (801) 810-9491
gabriel.white@utahtriallawyers.com
dan.garner@utahtriallawyers.com
v. Case No.
Defendants.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs Taildragger Dirt, LLC, Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. and Wayne Grant,
by and through their counsel, Gabriel K. White and Daniel S. Garner of The Utah Trial Lawyers,
carrying on the business of aviation instruction in Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt
on the business of aviation instruction in Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt Lake
County, Utah.
corporation which engages in various activities directed at wilderness areas and public land use
in placing obstructions on or adjacent to a runway located in Emory County, Utah, and therefore
Plaintiffs causes of action arose in Emory County. Venue is therefore proper in this court pursuant
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
restated herein.
8. On or about September 15, 2016, Plaintiffs were conducting a training flight under
2
9. Plaintiff Wayne Grant was in command of the aircraft at all times during the flight.
10. Mr. Grant was planning to make a landing on the Hidden Splendor airstrip (the
11. The airstrip is located on the top of a relatively narrow bluff with steep cliffs on
both sides.
12. Before attempting the landing, Mr. Grant made a surveillance flight over the airstrip
13. He determined that there were no visible obstructions and the airstrip appeared to
14. He then turned the aircraft to approach the airstrip from the South, which took some
time because the approach to land at the airstrip requires a flight out of view of the airfield through
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant was using the same area for an activity on
16. In support of that activity, Defendant placed two portable toilets on and/or
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant placed these portable toilets on or adjacent
to the airstrip in the period of time occurring after Mr. Grant made his surveillance flight over the
3
18. The portable toilets Defendant chose to place on or adjacent to the airstrip were
painted in colors that nearly perfectly matched the color of the surrounding ground area, effectively
camouflaging them and making them nearly impossible to see from the air.
19. Mr. Grant was only able to see the improperly-placed toilets during the in the
process of landing the plane, and only a few seconds before colliding with one of the toilets.
20. While the planes wheels were on the ground at the time, the airplane was still
21. Mr. Grant was not expecting that any portable toilets or other man-made
obstructions would be located on or adjacent to the airstrip. The airstrip is a well-known and
frequently used airstrip located in an isolated area. Placing obstructions (such as these toilets) in
areas where they may interfere with the ability to safely use an airstrip is obviously and
unreasonably dangerous, which is a fact that Defendant either knew or obviously should have
known, given its familiarity with Utahs backcountry areas, and given that it is common knowledge
that planes have wings, and require sufficient clear space around the airstrip for those wings in
22. Mr. Grant could not turn or otherwise maneuver the aircraft to avoid hitting the
toilets once on the ground, because deviating from the airstrip risked sending the plane into rough
ground at high speed and potentially sending the plane over the cliffs on both sides of the bluff.
23. The aircraft struck one of the toilets, causing severe damage to one of the wings,
that required a series of repairs and inspections before the aircraft could be used in operations
again, both at the scene of the accident and at the manufacturers repair facility.
4
24. As discussed below, Defendants carelessness in placing obstructions on or
adjacent to the airstrip (especially given that the obstructions were nearly impossible to see at a
distance) was the sole cause of this incident, which has resulted in damages to Plaintiffs, including,
but not limited to the cost of making repairs to the aircraft, loss of use of the aircraft, lost revenue
to all Plaintiffs, who were unable to earn revenue through the use of the aircraft for flight
instruction during the time it was being repaired, as well as damage to Plaintiffs personal and
business reputations, as well as other general and special damages, in an amount to be proven at
NEGLIGENCE
25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of this complaint as though fully
restated herein.
26. The standard of care for a reasonable person under the circumstances described
herein imposed a duty on Defendant to refrain from placing (or causing someone else to place)
27. The standard of care for a reasonable person under the circumstances described
herein imposed a duty on Defendant to refrain from placing (or causing someone else to be place)
large obstructions (such as portable toilets) on or adjacent to the airstrip that were difficult to see
because their color provided no contrast with the terrain, making it impossible for them to be seen
from the air, and thus failing to warn pilots that Defendants breach of the standard of care in
locating the obstructions on the airstrip had rendered it unsafe for use.
5
28. Defendants breaches of the standard of care described herein were the direct and
proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages, which include, but are not limited to, the cost of making
repairs to the aircraft, loss of use of the aircraft for several months, lost revenue to all Plaintiffs,
who were unable to earn revenue through the use of the aircraft for flight instruction during the
time it was being repaired, as well as damage to Plaintiff Wayne Grants personal reputation as a
safe and experienced pilot with decades of commercial, recreational and instructional flying
experience without any accidents prior to this incident, as well as damage to the business
reputations of Plaintiffs Taildragger and Cornerstone Aviation as flight school operators with an
unblemished reputation for providing their clients with safe training prior to this incident, lost
revenue due to this reputational damage, as well as other general and special damages, in an
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of this complaint as though fully
restated herein.
30. Upon information and belief, given their familiarity with the area, their status as an
organization that exists to protect wilderness areas in Utah, the fact that they planned to hold an
event of some sort in the area, along with the obvious physical condition of the ground, Defendant
31. In the alternative, even if Defendant denies that it had actual knowledge the area
where they were placing their portable toilets was an airstrip, the existence of the airstrip in that
6
location is so obvious on its face that Defendant would have to be blind not to have seen it when
32. The airstrip is a long section of flat, clear ground that runs a long distance in a
straight line in a very remote area with little to no human activity. The airstrip has obviously been
cleared on purpose by man-made forces as the area around it is surrounded by scrub brush, and the
33. Also, the airstrip begins at the edge of a cliff that drops hundreds, if not thousands
of feet down to the canyon floor below. Indeed, it is simply impossible for Defendant to have
mistaken the airstrip for a road or anything other than a backcountry airstrip.
34. Placing portable toilets (which were effectively camouflaged by their coloration)
on or directly adjacent to the airstrip, was extremely reckless, and in so doing, Defendant failed to
observe even slight care, to a degree that shows Defendants utter indifference to the potential
35. This is demonstrated by the simple fact that Defendant could have avoided this risk
by simply placing their portable toilets a safe distance from the airstrip. This would have required
no additional effort or expense by Defendant, given that they were already placing the toilets in
the general area, and could have simply dropped them further away from the airstrip, instead of
36. Given that Defendant was either on actual or constructive notice of the existence
and location of the airstrip, their actions represent conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless
indifference towards the rights of others, namely the right of Plaintiffs and other backcountry
7
pilots, who should not be put in danger of serious injury or death because of Defendants callous
37. Upon information or belief, Defendant knew of the substantial risk posed by its
actions (as discussed in the various paragraphs of this complaint) and proceeded to act while
38. Defendants knowing recklessness was unusually egregious, given that the location
and coloration of their portable toilets, along with the popularity of this particular airstrip, were
almost certain to cause a potentially very serious aviation accident. Defendant recklessly
39. For example, had Plaintiff been using a different type of aircraft on the date in
question, had the aircraft been moving faster at the moment of impact, or if the plane had impacted
the obstruction in an area of the plane carrying aviation fuel, the incident could easily have resulted
40. Similarly, had a less-experienced pilot in command encountered the danger created
by Defendants reckless disregard for the standard of care, and attempted to avoid the obstructions
by swerving, the plane would have left the runway at high speed, potentially sending it over a steep
cliff, which would have turned the aircraft and its passengers into a smoldering crater at the bottom
of the canyon.
41. Defendants acts and omissions clearly constitute gross negligence, which was the
direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages, as detailed in several other paragraphs of this
8
complaint (which are expressly incorporated herein by reference), and warrants an award of
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs do hereby demand a trial by jury for all claims which are entitled to be tried to a
WHEREFORE, pursuant to the allegations above, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court
1. Based on Plaintiffs first cause of action, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment for money
damages against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to the cost of
repairing the damaged aircraft, lost revenue to all three Plaintiffs due to the inability to use the
aircraft to carry out their respective businesses while it was being repaired, and damage to the
reputation of all three Plaintiffs due to the severe impact of even a single accident on the record of
a pilot or flight instruction company on their reputations, and the importance of reputation in the
flight instruction business, with total damages in an amount to be established at trial, but in no case
2. Based on Plaintiffs second cause of action, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment for
money damages against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to the cost
of repairing the damaged aircraft, lost revenue to all Plaintiffs due to the inability to use the aircraft
to carry out their respective business activities using the aircraft while it was being repaired, and
damage to the reputation of all three Plaintiffs due to the severe impact of even a single accident
9
on the record of a pilot or flight instruction company on their reputations, and the importance of
reputation in the flight instruction business, with total damages in an amount to be established at
3. For an award of punitive damages in an amount deemed appropriate by the jury, given
that Defendants the acts and omissions complained of herein manifest a knowing and reckless
indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others, and created a particularly egregious
and unusually dangerous situation, with the potential for catastrophic consequences, which
7. For all other relief the court finds just and proper.
10