• Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

Aviation Legal Studies

This case entails negligence on the part of Bill for not following the instruction given to him by the air traffic control. He has been assigned to take competitors of channel 26 to Fraser Island and should take a holding short on runway 10R. The same airport is used by students training to become pilots who have been assigned runway 10L for training purposes. A trainee pilot carries out training sessions which he begins slightly before Bill gets to take off. Bill is given the go ahead to start take-off if he deems it safe with regards to the student pilots that are taking their solo training sessions. He sees a plane designated for trainee pilots making a final approach on 10R. He is advised to hold short while the other plane is told to go around. He does not follow this advice and instead assumes that he will be able to take off before the other plane lands. The two planes collide with each sustaining damages with the passengers in Bills plane getting injured and their trip cancelled.

Negligence involves acts by a person against another that involve the failure to perform proper care as expected of him or her and results in injury or loss. Under negligence, one considers what an ordinary person would have done in such a situation. As such, the defendant has a duty of care which he has breached resulting in injury or loss on another person. In this case, Bill’s actions amount to professional negligence since he is a chartered pilot who is expected to ensure that he performs his professional duties to the best of his abilities. As such, he should not take any chances or miscalculations while at his job that could indicate a lack of reasonable care.

Duty of care

As a chartered pilot, Bill is expected to portray duty of care to those he serves as their pilot while they are aboard his plane. Professionals are deemed to have more knowledge and skills in their area of expertise and therefore should carry out his professional duties with maximum care. Duty of care usually arises when a person who is in possession of certain skills and undertakes to offer these skills to another person whom is dependent on this assistance (Tettenborn, et. al., 2003).

Breach of duty

Breach of duty arises when it is established that a person who owes a duty to someone fails to perform or act as expected of him or her. By exposing a person to risk arising from one’s failure to apply reasonable care, one is said to have carried out a breach of duty (Cupp & Danielle, 2002).

Factual causation

Under factual causation, a person needs to clearly show that the loss or injury incurred is as a result of the negligence of another person who did not exercise reasonable care (Hill, 2001). As such, it is important to ascertain that it is the actions of the defendant that only resulted to the losses incurred by a plaintiff.

One has to clearly show the loss incurred as a result of the negligence of another person.

This is the compensation that a defendant found guilty of negligence pays to the plaintiff depending on the degree of established negligence (Buswell, 2005). Compensation is expected to make the plaintiff to go back to the position he or her was before the loss or injury occurred.


Bill’s actions amount to professional negligence that results in a collision between his plane and a trainee’s plane and consequent injury to the people travelling on his plane. the people on his flight expect to arrive at their destination without any problems that are as a result of negligence on the part of the pilot. In the event that he is sued, the plaintiffs will base their argument on a breach of duty by the pilot who does not exercise reasonable care as a pilot. This is evident as he is advised not to hold short while the other plane goes around but instead assumes that he will have taken off by the time the other plane lands. As such, his actions lead to a collision which results in passengers sustaining injuries. Conversely, Bill could defend himself by saying that based on his vast experience; he could have managed to have taken off without colliding with the other plane had the other pilot landed on time as instructed.


This case involves professional negligence on the part of Bill who is a chartered pilot with a lot of experience. He does not exercise reasonable care by not following the advice given to him and instead takes off resulting in a collision with another plane that was landing. His passengers sustain injuries and their flight is cancelled as a result of this collision which occurs. He should learn to exercise reasonable care in his future flights and not take any rush judgments that could lead to such fatal consequences.


Buswell, H. (2005). The Civil Liability for Personal Injuries Arising out of Negligence. London: F.B. Rothman.

Cupp, R., & Danielle, P. (2002). «The Rhetoric of Strict Products Liability Versus Negligence: An Empirical Analysis.» New York University Law Review 77.

Hill, J. (2001). «Litigation and Negligence: A Comparative Study». Oxford J.L.S. (6), 183.

Tettenborn, A. M. et. al. (2003). Professional Negligence and Liability Reports. Sidney: Sweet & Maxwell.