Franklin Vs America Case Study

Caption Franklin and Franklin v. United States of America and Riddle, Jr., and Chicago Helicopter Airways, INC., and Creighton, US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, (1965)

Context Parties: Siesel A. Franklin, Plaintiff (Cross-Appellant), Helen W. Franklin, Plaintiff (Appellee), United States of America and Hugh Riddle, Jr. Defendant (Appellant-Cross-Appellee), Chicago Helicopter Airways, Inc. Defendant (Appellant-Cross-Appellee), and Richard R. Creighton, Defendant (Appellant-Cross-Appellee)

Objective: The listed defendants appeal United States District Court judgment of negligence causing suffering damages to the plaintiff, Helen W. Franklin. Plaintiff Siesel A. Franklin appeal of contributing negligence in the district courts findings.

Material Facts: A helicopter crossed a plane’s flight path at Meigs Field, Chicago prior to the plane crashing short of the runway. Siesel A. Franklin was the pilot of the plane while, Helen W. Franklin was a

The Appellate Court found that the helicopter was flown correctly and cleared to land. Creighton learned of a second aircraft in the area and got a second clearance to land as directed on a taxiway and at no time interfered with the runway of the landing aircraft piloted by Franklin.

2. The Appellate Court found the “District Court was in error in holding Riddle, the operator of the control tower 1) had a duty to advise the pilot of the Beechcraft of the presence of the helicopter in the control zone; 2) in presuming or assuming the tower operator was aware of a helicopter turbulence problem, and 3) that he did not keep the helicopter within his view” Lexisnexis.com, (2015).

3. The testimonies of aviation experts identified that both aircraft were far enough apart with combination of wind speed/direction and the finding of the helicopter not effecting the planes approach was affirmed. The determination of negligence on behalf of the plane’s pilot, Siesel A. Franklin, was