text:
Consumer Brand
Outgrower Programme
Environmental Enhancement
Corporate Portrait
The Bonds
Information for Bondholders
Noteholders' Meetings
Annual Overviews
A LEADING AGRIBUSINESS AND FOOD COMPANY IN AFRICA
We combine international expertise with local African know-how, and a long-term vision with a sustainable approach.
Amatheon Agri is a European agribusiness and food company, headquartered in Berlin and operating in Sub-Saharan Africa. Focusing on farming, trading and food processing, Amatheon integrates its activities along the agricultural value chain. As a triple-bottom-line company, Amatheon acts as an anchor investor in rural areas to uplift neighboring communities economically, socially and environmentally. Its combination of international expertise with local Africa know-how, and a long-term vision with a sustainable approach, makes it set to become a leading player in the African agri sector.
Founded in 2011, Amatheon established its subsidiaries in Zambia in 2012, Uganda in 2013, and Zimbabwe in 2014. During this relatively short timeframe, Amatheon has proven its business model and demonstrated its ability to build large, replicable, scalable platforms – in both farming and food processing. With over USD 100 million invested in its operations so far, Amatheon believes that the key to unlocking Sub-Saharan Africa's vast agricultural potential is combining world-class farming techniques, partnerships with smallholder farmers, and vertical value chain integration.
Use the Quick Nav below to jump to sections:
Carl Heinrich Bruhn
Founder &
Carl Heinrich Bruhn is the founder and CEO of Amatheon Agri Holding NV. A trained agronomist and an experienced entrepreneur, Carl has been in the agribusiness sector for more than 20 years. Previously, he was the Head of Mergers & Acquisitions at Nordmilch, and the Executive Director of Sachsenmilch Group – one of the leading German dairy companies. In 2004, Carl started his own farm management, agri consulting and bioenergy company before focusing entirely on Amatheon since 2011.
Herwig Tilly
Farming Division
Herwig Tilly is the Director of the Farming Division at Amatheon Agri Holding NV. After working in the agribusiness sector for more than 15 years and heading several large-scale farms in Germany, Herwig brings extensive knowledge on agricultural processes and international farm management. Before joining Amatheon Agri in 2012, he directed Farming Operations in Chile and led a large-scale operation growing both traditional and specialised crops.
Victoria Cavanagh
Director of International
Victoria Cavanagh is responsible for planning and implementing Amatheon Agri's sales, marketing and product development activities, and positioning the company as a leading food supplier for clients worldwide. She brings nine years of experience in international development and communications across public and private organisations in both Africa and Europe. Prior to joining Amatheon, Victoria worked for the United Nations (UN) in Rome and was responsible for marketing UN logistics and supply-chain services to international organisations and governments.
Max Sturm
Chief Financial
As Chief Financial Officer at Amatheon Agri Holding N.V., Max Sturm brings a wealth of experience across senior operational and financial positions to the company. An Austrian national, Max studied Law and also holds a B.Com in Financial Analysis and Portfolio Management. He most recently sat on the Management Board of a media company and prior to this held numerous senior positions including Chief Financial Officer at Senator Entertainment AG and Managing Director at Constantin Medien AG.
Markus Meister
Supervisory Board Chairman
Markus Meister is an entrepreneur and investor with over 30 years of stock market experience. He has built-up one of the biggest financial news websites in Germany, FinanzNachrichten.de, and sold this profitable online business in 2019.
He still serves the company, ABC New Media AG (Zurich), as a director. He served on the Supervisory Board of Ichor Coal N.V., a Dutch holding company with coal mines in South Africa, for a period of nearly two years. From December 2017 until his resignation in September 2019 he was the Independent Vice-Chairman of this company with a listing on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
Markus Mair
Supervisory Board Member
Markus Mair has been Managing Director of Aktieninvestor GmbH for 18 years, a private equity company. He holds a law degree from the University of Innsbruck and a degree in Business Administration from the Vienna University of Economics and Business.
Hans-Jörg Gatt
Hans-Jörg Gatt has been an active investor for more than 25 years and holds shares in various companies. He studied economics with specialization in finance at the University of Innsbruck and wrote his thesis in Spain at the University of Barcelona. After longer stays abroad, among others in London, Mr. Gatt took over various management tasks at the largest bank in Liechtenstein, LGT Bank Ltd. Since 2008, Mr. Gatt is a Partner at an international family office where he manages various international investments.
Troy Minne
Troy Minne is an accomplished Managing Director with over 20 years' experience running large-scale agriculture and beef operations in Africa. He has vast experience in green-field developments, irrigation planning and design, as well as training and community development. Before joining Amatheon Agri Zambia in 2015, Troy was leading a large agricultural operation in Swaziland.
Laura Schenck
Sustainability and Quality Controls Manager
Laura Schenck is responsible for implementing Amatheon's sustainability strategy and quality control procedures, including the company's environmental and social compliance with international frameworks, the inclusion of smallholder farmers into its business models, as well as the maintenance of food safety standards in HQ and on the farms. She brings agricultural and rural development expertise from working for the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in Rome as well as from her experience as a technical advisor for the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) in Ethiopia and Namibia.
Suzanne Fleury
Group Legal
Suzanne Fleury is Amatheon's group legal counsel, overseeing and advising on a range of corporate and operational matters in Europe and Africa. Suzanne is an Irish qualified Barrister-at-Law who practised as Junior Counsel at the Irish bar for over 7 years before moving to Berlin in 2014. Since moving to Germany and prior to starting at Amatheon Agri, she gained business experience in the food industry working with the Irish Food Board on a government-sponsored business development programme promoting Irish food and drink companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
Michael Ledwith
CEO of the
Real Meat Africa Group
Michael brings forty years of experience and knowledge of the food industry, specializing in red meat. He has worked with some of the largest processing plants in Europe and Africa, and has operated at all levels from factory floor to boardroom. Michael has more than fifteen years of experience in the Zambia meat industry, previously having worked as Chief Operating Officer at one of Zambia's largest FMCG companies, and a further ten years' experience in the South African meat sector, supplying the continent's largest retail chains. Most recently, Michael was the Managing Director of the Falkland Islands Meat Company.
Simangaliso Mangena
Simangaliso Mangena brings more than 20 years of agricultural expertise to Amatheon Agri Zimbabwe. He was an operational manager for a large horticultural company in Zimbabwe, before joining Amatheon Agri Zambia in 2014 as Outgrower and Operational Manager. His experience also entails working with large and smallcale farmers while holding an MBA from Zimbabwe University.
Recognising that its success relies on the calibre and capabilities of its staff, Amatheon aims to attract, motivate and retain the best talent by being an inspiring, supportive and rewarding employer. Amatheon prioritises fair and safe working conditions for all employees, zero corruption, non-discrimination, and upholding internationally recognized human rights. Amatheon commits to the highest health and safety standards, ensures grievance mechanisms to address misconduct, actively monitors adherence to labor laws and upholds international human rights. Amatheon is also a participant of the UN Global Compact initiative which advocates for the adherence to ten principles comprising of human rights, environment, labor and anti-corruption.
Only technically required cookies are set if you visit the website. Without these cookies the website cannot be used. Through the use of the website you consent with the use of these required cookies. Further information can be found in our privacy statement." By clicking "Accept", you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Growing Value.
Amatheon Agri Holding N.V.
info@amatheon-agri.com
+49 (0) 30 5300 090 00
© 2021 Amatheon Agri Holding N.V. Privacy Policy Impressum
Web Dev By 86DSGN


text:
791 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2015), 14-1599, United States v. Thomas
Docket Nº: 14-1599
Citation: 791 F.3d 889
Opinion Judge: SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.
Party Name: United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Brandy Marie Thomas, Defendant - Appellant
Attorney: For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Jana K. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cameron Charles McCree, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR. For Brandy Marie Thomas, Defendant - Appellant: Nicki Nicolo, Law Offices of Nicki N...
Judge Panel: Before MURPHY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL,[1] District Judge.
Case Date: July 02, 2015
Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Thomas was convicted of four counts of wire fraud based on a scheme she perpetrated to defraud mortgage lenders by submitting false income information on loan applications. The district court sentenced Thomas to 48 months imprisonment and ordered her to pay restitution. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding evidentiary rulings allowing the government to introduce evidence of a separate,... (see full summary)
791 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2015)
United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee
Brandy Marie Thomas, Defendant - Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Submitted: March 13, 2015.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.
For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Jana K. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cameron Charles McCree, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR.
For Brandy Marie Thomas, Defendant - Appellant: Nicki Nicolo, Law Offices of Nicki Nicolo, North Little Rock, AR.
Brandy Marie Thomas, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Grand Prairie, TX.
Before MURPHY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL,1 District Judge.
SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.
Brandy Thomas was convicted, after a jury trial, of four counts of wire fraud based on a scheme she perpetrated to defraud mortgage lenders by submitting false income information on loan applications. The district court2 sentenced Thomas to 48 months imprisonment followed by 18 months supervised release and ordered her to pay restitution. Thomas appeals, arguing the district court erred in two of its evidentiary rulings, in the instructions it gave to the jury, in allowing the government to constructively amend the indictment, and in issuing an Allen3 charge to the jury and polling individual jurors. We affirm.
A grand jury indicted Brandy Thomas on four counts of wire fraud for allegedly engaging in a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders between June 2006 and December 2006. The government alleged that Thomas defrauded lenders by submitting false income information on loan applications in relation to the purchase of three properties and the refinancing of one property, specifically alleging Thomas overstated her income, provided fictitious rental agreements to support the overstated income amount, and failed to list a mortgage debt on loan documents.
We first consider whether the district court erred in the instruction it gave the jury regarding the " intent to harm" element of wire fraud. Before submitting the case to the jury, the district court considered proposed jury instructions from both Thomas and the government concerning the " intent to defraud" element of the wire fraud offense. The district court rejected Thomas's proposed instruction and instead used an instruction that closely followed the Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction for mail fraud. Thomas asserts that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Thomas must have contemplated, at the
very least, some actual harm to another in order to convict her of wire fraud. We review a district court's jury instructions for abuse of discretion. Boesing v. Hunter, 540 F.3d 886, 890 (8th Cir. 2008).
Securing a conviction for wire fraud requires the government to prove that: (1) the defendant devised or joined a scheme to defraud, (2) the defendant intended to defraud, (3) it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used, and (4) wire communications were, in fact, used. 18 U.S.C. § 1343; United States v. Johnson, 450 F.3d 366, 374 (8th Cir. 2006). Regarding the " intent to defraud" element, " the [government] is not required to show actual loss or harm to the victims of the fraud in order to prove wire fraud []. Rather, the government merely needs to show that the accused intended to defraud his victim and that his or her communications were reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension." United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539, 556 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Thomas argues that the district court should have relied upon United States v. Jain, 93 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 1996), in issuing its instruction on the " intent to defraud" element. In Jain, our court reversed a defendant's conviction for mail fraud when the government failed to provide any evidence that the victims suffered tangible harm or to otherwise prove the defendant's fraudulent intent. Id. at 441-42. Thomas asserts that this case requires the government to prove an intent to cause harm, rather than a simple intent to defraud. See id. at 441. But Jain is an honest-services fraud case that is distinct from the wire fraud charges against Thomas. See id. Thus, Jain is inapplicable, despite Thomas's assertions to the contrary. Here, the district court instructed the jury that " [t]o act with intent to defraud means to act knowingly and with the intent to deceive someone for the purpose of bringing about some financial gain to oneself or another to the detriment of another person." R. Doc. 108, at 20. This instruction is in accordance with Eighth Circuit law. See Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d at 556. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in the instruction it gave the jury regarding the " intent to defraud" element of wire fraud.
We next consider whether the district court erred in allowing the government to introduce evidence of a separate, subsequent scheme in which Thomas attempted to defraud mortgage lenders. Prior to trial, Thomas filed a motion in limine seeking the exclusion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), of any testimony relating to her participation in this scheme. The evidence concerned the 2007 purchase of a home by the grandmother of Thomas's child. Thomas served as the real estate agent on the transaction. At trial, the grandmother testified that Thomas encouraged her to falsify her income on loan paperwork to obtain a loan and advised her to produce fake rental agreements to support the falsified income. The district court denied the motion, allowing the testimony as evidence of intent or absence of mistake. Thomas asserts that the district court erred in admitting this evidence because the witness providing this testimony made contradictory statements and the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. We review a district court's admission of Rule 404(b) evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hawkins, 548 F.3d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir. 2008). " We construe Rule 404(b) broadly as a rule of inclusion, and we will reverse only when such evidence clearly had no bearing on the case and was introduced solely to prove the...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Kim-Anh Nguyen : I've always been passionate about drawing, since a really young age… then, by my teen years, got in the pUnK scene, etc. and naturally discovered the tattoo world.
How old were you when you got your first tattoo? And what is it?
Kim-Anh Nguyen : 15! (Please, DO NOT do it yourself!
It was (unfortunately, still is) some kind of japanese landscape with a lotus flower, bamboo branches, swallows and a star with an Oi! inscription on it… haha, so funny! :) Keep in mind that I was very young!
Well, I'm planning to laser it someday soon to start a "real" back piece.
You have many beautiful paintings of owls, is it your favorite design?
Kim-Anh Nguyen : Thank you I had a big and obsessive owl phase some years ago… it stared around 4 years ago.
It used to be my favorite design, sure… I have several owl tattoos myself.
But then, as anything that becomes a fad, it started to fed me up a little bit and so I tried to start drawing other stuff too.
I still like cute stuff, thus said… but I'm also into more traditional asian stuff or less girlie old school tattoos.
Who is your favorite tattoo artist? And by whom you would like to get tattooed?
Kim-Anh Nguyen : I have to pick just one?? Impossible…)some people I really like are Uncle Allan, Jurgen Eckel, El Bara, Ashley Love, Marco Serio, Tutti Serra, Judd Ripley, Claudia DeSabe and Paul Dobleman among others.
I've been SO lucky to get tattoos from almost all of them… and I'm planning to get tattooed by Claudia and Paul Dobleman, hopefully someday soon!


text:
College Basketball Pick - West Virginia vs TCU Prediction, 1/31/2023 Best Bets, Odds & Betting Tips
Free Picks » MLB Picks » Angels at Tigers Picks and MLB Betting Odds
Angels at Tigers Picks and MLB Betting Odds
by Dave Schwab - 6/25/2013
The Los Angeles Angels embark on a six-game road trip this week with the first stop being at Comerica Park for a three-game series with the Detroit Tigers starting this Tuesday night. Game 1 is slated to get underway at 7:08 p.m. (ET), and it will be available on MLB Extra Innings.
The Angels were swept by Pittsburgh at home this weekend with three loses by a combined score of 21-12. They are now 33-43 on the year and a full 11 games in back of Texas for the lead in the AL West. They are 13-20 on the road this season and the total has stayed "under" in four of their last six games.
Detroit took three of four from Boston at home over the past four days to improve to 42-32 on the year. It now leads Cleveland in the AL Central by four games. The Tigers are an AL-best 26-13 at home this season, and the total has gone "over" in four of their last five games.
Angels at Tigers Betting Storylines
Coming in as the favorite to not only win the division, but the American League Pennant as well, calling the start to this season a major disappointment would be a gross understatement for Los Angeles. It is ranked 13th in the league in pitching with a team ERA of 4.36, and its powerful lineup is averaging 4.53 runs per game, which is ranked eighth. The Angels have gotten decent production from all-stars such as Mark Trumbo (50 RBI and 17 home runs), Albert Pujols (47 RBI and 13 home runs) and Mike Trout (46 RBI and 12 home runs), but this has obviously failed to translate to wins.
Los Angeles will go with CJ Wilson as its starter for the series opener. The left-hander is 6-5 on the year with a 3.61 ERA. He is coming off his best start of the season after holding Seattle to just two hits in seven full innings of work. He has not given up more than three earned runs in nine of his last 10 starts. Lifetime against Detroit he is 1-2 with a 4.94 ERA.
The Tigers have vaulted to the top of the AL Central standings behind a solid balance of both pitching and hitting. Their staff ERA of 3.70 is tied with Texas for second-best in the AL, and they are ranked first in the league in hitting with a .283 team batting average. The big guns for Detroit so far this season have been Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder. Cabrera has been a one-man wrecking crew with 75 RBI and 20 home runs, while Fielder has pulled his weight with 58 RBI and 12 home runs. Overall, the team is averaging 5.04 runs a game.
Look for Rick Porcello to be on the mound for Detroit in this one as the starter. He is 4-4 overall with a 4.74 ERA. The right-hander will be looking to avenge an early season loss to LA in which he was tagged for nine earned runs on nine hits in the first inning. Overall, Porcello is 3-3 against the Angles with an ERA of 7.68.
Angels at Tigers Betting Odds and Trends
BetOnline has opened Los Angeles as a +118 road underdog on its money line for this contest with the Tigers listed as -128 home favorites. The total has been set at 9.
The Angels are 20-8 in their last 28 games against the AL Central but just 5-11 in their last 16 games against a right-handed starter. The total has gone over in the first game of 10 of their last 14 series.
The Tigers are 24-8 in Game 1 of their last 32 series and 27-11 in Porcello's last 38 starts against a team with a losing record. The total has gone over in four of their last five home games.
Head-to-head in this series, Los Angeles is a perfect 6-0 in the last six meetings, including a three-game sweep earlier this year. The total has stayed "under" in seven of the last 11 games between the two.
Angels at Tigers Picks and Betting Predictions
The Angels may bring a six-game winning streak over Detroit into this series, but current form does not dictate a win on Tuesday night. Look for a much better effort from Porcello on the mound to complement more than enough runs to gain the early edge in this series with a win.
The handicappers at Doc's Sports are offering $60 worth of member's baseball picks absolutely free – no obligation, no sales people – Sign up here for free baseball picks
Read more articles by Dave Schwab
DAILY FREE VIDEO PICKS More Free Picks
31-14 Top Plays Run!
Start: January 31, 2023 @ 9:00 PM
Expert: Scott Spreitzer
Free $60 Account Sign Up


text:
Tag Archives: Aviation litigation
Aviation, Commercial Litigation, Forum non conveniens
Pennsylvania Court Takes New Approach in Forum Non Conveniens Dispute
On December 5, 2016, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania denied the appeal of a trial court decision to grant a forum non conveniens motion to dismiss claims brought by European family members following a fatal plane crash. The court rejected the idea that plaintiffs' choice of forum should be given "overwhelming deference." The court also appears to have adopted an approach favoring the qualitative comparison of categories of evidence available in the U.S. and in the alternative foreign forum. Bochetto, et al., v Dimeling, Schreiver & Park, et al., 2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 (Dec. 5, 2016).
The case arose from the crash of a twin-engine Piper PA-34-220T Seneca V on September 15, 2009 near Castro Verde, Portugal. The aircraft, which was manufactured by Piper Aircraft in Florida, crashed during a nighttime training exercise, killing the three occupants including a Spanish flight instructor, a student pilot who was a Dutch citizen, and a student pilot with dual Dutch-Australian citizenship. The case was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. The plaintiffs alleged claims based on strict products liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud and civil conspiracy against 14 defendants, all of whom were located in the United States.
The manufacturer and some defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to a Pennsylvania statute recognizing the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Pa.C.S. § 5322(e). Defendants argued that the aircraft was maintained in Portugal, the pilot was trained in Portugal, the underlying accident occurred in Portugal, the Portuguese government conducted the accident investigation, and all of the non-party witnesses and relevant documents were in Portugal, all of the decedents were from Europe, and the real parties in interest were from Europe. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, countering that all the evidence related to the design and manufacture of the aircraft was located in the United States, the negligence claims against the foreign defendants were untenable, and the flight school had a strong presence in the United States.
The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed. Citing Pennsylvania law and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257–58 (1981), The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court erred when it limited its discussion to those forum non conveniens factors that were specific to Pennsylvania, and did not address the network of connections to the United States as a whole. 2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 at *6.
The plaintiffs argued that they were due greater deference in their choice of forum in this case because "the choice was between Portugal, where no defendant or plaintiff is located, and the United States where all of the defendants reside, where the evidence supporting plaintiffs' claims is maintained, and where the misconduct causing the accident occurred." 2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 at *17.
The appellate court reasoned that although the plaintiffs were correct that their home countries of Spain, the Netherlands, and Australia may not present the most convenient forums, that did not mean that plaintiffs had "free choice" of any other forum since in a global case such as this, no one jurisdiction may stand out as convenient. The trial court was required to give some deference but not overwhelming deference to plaintiffs' choice of forum.
The court analyzed the trial court's methodology in balancing public and private interests, and noted that the trial court did conclude that some items weighed in favor of an American forum. For example, evidence relating to aircraft design, original and subsequent American owners, and maintenance before the plane was sold to a European company were all located in the United States. The appellate court looked approvingly on the trial court's comparison of the availability of other categories of evidence, such as the location of evidence related to more recent aircraft maintenance and pilot error in Portugal. The more relevant evidence was the documentation of maintenance and upkeep after the aircraft was sold to the Belgian company that leased it to the Portuguese flight school. By engaging in such a qualitative assessment of the evidence and its importance, rather than merely counting up items in a list, the appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' case. 2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 at * 22.
Aviation litigationforum non conveniensmanufacturingPennsylvaniaPortland aviation lawPortland aviation lawyerPortland aviation litigationPortland litigation attorneysPortland litigators
Aviation, Litigation, Manufacturing, Mass torts, Personal Injury, Scott Brooksby, Service animals, Trials
Birds, Pets, Lasers, Stowaways, and Other Hot Topics in Aviation
July 6, 2016 olsonbrooksby
Hot topics in aviation litigation include birds, pets, lasers, and stowaways. Each pose the danger of catastrophic mass torts.
Bird and animal strikes pose an increasing danger to commercial, military and general aviation. Strikes result in death and serious injury to passengers and crew, and soaring costs for aircraft damage. Bird strikes are the second leading cause of death in aviation accidents.
According to Boeing, the first bird strike was recorded by the Wright Brothers in 1905. The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike occurred on October 4, 1960, when a Lockheed L-188 flying as Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, flew through a flock of common starlings during take-off from Logan Airport, damaging all four engines. The plane crashed into Boston harbor killing 62 of the 72 passengers on board. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Other major bird strike incidents include:
United Airlines Flight 297. On November 23, 1962, a Vickers Viscount 745D crashed near Columbia, Maryland after striking a flock of whistling swans while cruising at 6,000 feet. The impact caused the horizontal stabilizer to separate, leading to loss of control. All seventeen people on board were killed.
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 604. On September 15, 1988, a Boeing 737-200 ingested a flock of speckled pigeons as it took off from Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Both engines failed immediately, and the ensuing belly landing caused a fire that killed 35 passengers.
Leadair UniJet. On January 20, 1995, a Dassault Falcon 20 sucked lapwings into the No. 1 engine on takeoff, which caused an uncontrolled engine failure and a fire in the airplane's fuselage; all 10 people on board were killed.
S. Air Force Boeing E-3. On September 22, 1995 the AWACS aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff from Elmendorf AFB. The aircraft lost power in both port side engines after the engines ingested several Canada geese during takeoff. The geese had been disturbed during the takeoff of a Hercules transport moments earlier. After reaching 250 feet, the plane crashed about two miles from the runway, killing all 24 crew members on board.
Ryanair Flight 4102. On November 10, 2008 a Boeing 737-8AS on final approach to Rome Ciampino Airport sustained 90 bird strikes, all from starlings. After one engine was damaged, and the other engine ingested birds, the crew managed an emergency landing. There were 10 injuries. The plane, which was only eight months old, was a total loss.
US Airways Flight 1549. On January 15, 2009 an Airbus A320-214 lost power in both engines after multiple strikes with Canada geese shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport. About three minutes after the loss of all power, the flight crew conducted a water landing on the Hudson River. 150 passengers and five crew members sustained a total of 95 minor and five serious injuries.
PHI Inc., Charter. On January 4, 2009, a Sikorsky S-76C crashed into marshland about seven minutes after takeoff near Amelie, Louisiana, killing two pilots and six of the seven passengers. The helicopter's impact with a red-tailed hawk jarred the fire suppression handles loose, which pushed the engine controls to idle, depriving the engines of fuel.
Boeing has compiled extensive data on bird strikes:
More than 219 people have been killed as a result of bird strikes since 1988.
Between 1990 and 2009, bird and mammal strikes cost the U.S. civil aviation complex $650 million per year.
The U.S. Air Force sustains approximately $333 million dollars in damage per year due to bird strikes.
About 5,000 bird strikes were reported by the Air Force in 2012.
About 9,000 bird and other wildlife strikes were reported for U.S civil aircraft in 2009.
The FAA has identified 482 species of birds involved in strikes from 1990-2012.
Between 2001 and 2011, 4066 engines were damaged in 3,935 bird strikes. This resulted in a wide range of outcomes including aborted takeoffs, engine shutdowns, and crashes.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/. (Last visited 4/19/16). http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131108-aircraft-bird-strikes-faa-radar. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Factors Contributing to the Rise in Bird Strikes
The North American non-migratory Canada goose population increased from 1 million birds in 1990 to 4 million birds in 2009. Concentrations are particularly high at JFK airport and surrounding regions, with the ample grass and wetlands, but populations of various sizes are found near airports across the country.
A twelve pound Canada goose struck by an airplane moving at 150 miles per hour during takeoff generates the kinetic energy of a 1000 pound weight dropped from a height of ten feet.
Nesting populations of bald eagles increased from 400 pairs in 1970 to 13,000 pairs in 2010. Between 1990 and 2009, 125 bald eagle strikes were reported. The body mass of a bald eagle is 9.1 pounds for males and 11.8 pounds for females.
Finally, the population of European starlings is now the second most prevalent bird species in America, numbering over 150 million. Often called "silver bullets," they fly at high speed and have a body density that is 27 percent greater than gulls. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Population Management Techniques
In January, 2009, U.S. Airways Flight 1549 landed on the Hudson River after both engines ingested Canada geese. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared war on geese. Suzanne Goldenberg, New York Declares War on Geese to Prevent Airport Bird Strikes, The Guardian (June 12, 2009) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jun/12/new-york-geese-cull. (Last visited 4/19/16). A mayoral steering committee gave approval to the USDA to cull geese in a 450 mile area encompassing JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports. Principal methods of population control include:
Each summer teams of USDA goose catchers capture geese which, in the molting condition cannot fly, including offspring which are then take to slaughterhouses and killed. Between 2009 and 2010, 2911 geese were killed.
The USDA reports that 80 percent of Canada geese are resident, and remain in place, rather than migrate. The government and airport operators strongly advocate for the culling of non-migratory birds.
Discouraging nesting and grazing.
Letting grass grow taller, planting unpalatable grasses, reducing standing rainwater, and oiling eggs to prevent hatching.
Firing pyrotechnics and propane cannons.
Use of chemical repellants.
Population exclusion.
Use of visual repellants.
Tactile repellants.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Potential Liability for Airport Operators
Airport managers must exercise due diligence in managing wildlife hazards to avoid serious liability issues. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations requires Part 139-certificated airports experiencing hazardous wildlife conditions as defined in 14 C.F.R. Section 139.337 to conduct formal Wildlife Hazard Assessments. The certificated airports must develop Wildlife Hazard Management Plans as part of the certification standards. Airports are required to employ professional biologists trained in wildlife hazard management. 14 C.F.R. Section 139.337 and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-36. Failure to comply with the regulations can give rise to liability for airport operators. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/airline_safety/pdfs/Summary%20Report%20WS%20Airport%20Wildlife%20Hazards%20Program%20FY%2008.pdf. (Comprehensive overview of applicable regulations and methods, last visited 4/19/16).
The USDA's Airport Wildlife Hazards Program plays a leading role in the supervision and management of wildlife strikes with aircraft. Wildlife challenges are by no means limited to birds. Airports across the country are struggling with wildlife management. http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/hunting-fishing/2016/01/17/Keeping-wildlife-off-tarmac-is-big-job-at-Pittsburgh-International-Airport/stories/201601170140. (Last visited 4/19/16).
In addition to reports of aircraft strikes involving nearly 500 bird species, other wildlife strikes reported during the last decade involved nearly 100 terrestrial animals including mongoose, bears, badgers, moose, pigs, burros, horses, and even camels, in addition to 137 reptile strikes.
For additional background information, see "Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990-2001", United States Department of Agriculture, Federal Aviation Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, July, 2012. Report published for the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards. https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/resources/media/bash90-11.pdf. (Last visited 4/19/16). http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/bird-enthusiasts/birdstrikes.pdf. (Alternate link, last visited 4/19/16).
Regulations for Aircraft and Engine Manufacturers
In response to the Eastern Airlines crash in Boston in 1960 mentioned above, The FAA issued Advisory Circular 33-1 "Turbine Engine Foreign Object Ingestion and Rotor Blade Containment Type Certification Procedures," which provided guidance for compliance with FAA regulations §3313 and §3319 requiring that engine design minimize unsafe condition. For additional information on the scope of required fan and engine construction, see Christopher Demers, "Large Air Transport Jet Engine Design Considerations for Large and for Flocking Bird Encounters", DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2009). http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=birdstrike2009. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Aircraft Wheel Well Stowaways and Potential Mass Torts
In recent years, wheel well stowaways have received increasing media attention and public interest. Statistics on the manner of death and the factors that keep stowaways alive are not precise, and there are differing standards for investigation internationally.
Many, if not most, of these incidents arise from the unfortunate political, social, economic or family circumstance of the stowaway. However, assuming the physiological obstacles of hypothermia and hypoxia are overcome, one major question remains: What legal implications are raised if a stowaway with destructive intent caused a major tragedy?
Usually a stowaway jumps into an aircraft by hanging on to the airliner's landing gear as the plane takes off, or climbs into the gear compartment before takeoff. The force of the wind can easily make a stowaway fall to his or her death. Alternatively, many stowaways are crushed in the confined space of the compartment when the gear is retracted. Others appear to have died from the heat produced by the engines of the aircraft, or fallen while unconscious when the gear is extended. The overwhelming majority of stowaways are young males.
According to the FAA, the first recorded case of an aircraft stowaway occurred on June 13, 1929. The Bernard monoplane Oiseau Canari, piloted by Frenchmen Assollant Lefevre, had trouble taking off in spite of its powerful Hispano Suiza engine. The crew later discovered the cause of the problem: a stowaway on board. Despite the overload, the plane landed in Spain after 22 hours of flight. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/offices/tc/about/campus/faa_host/rdm/media/pdf/fy2011rdannualreview.pdf. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Physiological threats for a stowaway are minimal at altitudes up to 8,000 feet, but at higher altitudes reduced atmospheric pressure and partial pressure of oxygen may have deleterious effects. At all cruising altitudes, the partial pressure of oxygen in a wheel well cannot sustain consciousness. Additionally, at altitudes of about 20,000 feet, stowaways may develop decompression sickness. Id.
All of the scientific research suggests that, after takeoff, a stowaway faces two life-threatening conditions during flight: hypoxia and hypothermia. In 1993, the fatality of a 19-year old who stowed away in the wheel-well of a plane bound from Colombia to JFK was one of the 13 wheel-well stowaway flights documented in a report by the U.S. FAA, Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), and Flight Safety Foundation as having frozen to death. (FSF). https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/1990s/media/AM96-25.pdf . http://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_may-jun97.pdf . (Last visited 4/19/16).
Some experts suggest that survival rates in young people may be higher because their brains more readily approach to a "virtual hibernative state," where their bodies become temporarily more adaptable to trauma. http://time.com/70441/how-the-teen-stowaway-survived-his-trans-pacific-flight-in-a-wheel-well/. (Last visited 4/19/16).
According to the FAA, from 1947-2014 there have been 94 flights involving 105 people who stowed away worldwide. Of those 105 people, 80 died and twenty-five survived. The twenty-five people who survived represent a 23.8 percent survival rate.
In 2014 a sixteen-year-old California boy jumped a fence at San Jose International Airport and squeezed into the wheel-well of a flight bound for Maui, where he emerged 5 hours later, in good health. Experts surmised that the teen's youth could be an advantage, as the brains of young people adapt more easily to hypothermia and hypoxia, for reasons that are not completely understood. http://khon2.com/2014/04/20/fbi-investigating-stowaway-of-hawaiian-airlines-flight/. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Similarly, in June, 2015, a 21-year old Indonesian man hid in the wheel well of a Garuda Indonesia flight from Sumatra to Jakarta. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/stowaway-survives-flight-indonesia_n_7023396.html. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Possible Liability
There may be a number of consequences of security breaches by aircraft wheel well stowaways and their on-board actions, despite the present physiological obstacles. Among these include:
In the event of a crash, mass tort litigation by innocent passengers against airlines, airports, governments and contractors arising from security breaches.
Widespread concern about security at public, airline, security provider, airport, and government levels which leads to additional legislation, regulation, or policy.
Other terrorist acts such as ransom demands or extortion of other conditions by extremists determined to cause a catastrophe through a stowaway with destructive or disruptive capability.
Government levied fines for airlines, airports, private security companies, local police, and federal agents based on security breaches.
Increased security measures imposed on airport, airline, local, state and federal authorities.
Lawsuits by agencies, airlines or security agents against the indigent stowaways are unlikely, although deportation is possible.
Wheel well stowaway events appear to be on the rise, and each event is highly publicized. However, these events have not resulted in widespread litigation. The only litigated case brought by the family of a stowaway involved sixteen-year-old Delvonte Tisdale. Tisdale ran away from home on November 14th, 2010. A day later his body was found mangled in a Boston suburb. Authorities determined that Tisdale likely sneaked onto the tarmac of Charlotte-Douglas International Airport and climbed into the wheel well of US Airways Flight 1176, bound for Boston.
Tisdale's family sued US Airways, The airport, and the City of Charlotte alleging that the defendants negligently failed to ensure people could not access restricted areas. Among the failure to warn claims was an allegation that the defendants failed to warn of the dangers of entering an aircraft as a passenger through the wheel well.
http://www.greensboro.com/news/local_news/family-of-teen-stowaway-who-fell-from-plane-s-wheel/article_3e969954-8528-5211-99c8-88cc77529794.html. (Last visited 4/19/16).
The judge ultimately disagreed with Tisdale's family and dismissed the case. Siding with Charlotte City Attorney Robert Hagemann, the judge ruled in July, 2013 that Tisdale was negligent in his actions and that the city is not responsible for people who breach security. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/judge-dismisses-suit-filed-by-family-of-airplane-stowaway-delvonte-tisdale/. (Last visited 4/19/16).
The breach of security in the Tisdale case raised questions about airport security. If a 16-year-old, who had never flown before could evade airport security measures, then why not a terrorist? With the proliferation of wheel well stowaways, it is likely only a matter of time until a tragic mass tort occurs.
Aircraft Laser Strikes
Reports of aircraft targeting with handheld ground lasers have been rising sharply. In 2006, there were 384 reported incidents. By 2014, there were 3,894 reported incidents. In 2015, there were 7,702 reported incidents. The FAA has recorded approximately 22 aircraft laser strikes per day in 2016. https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=15774 (Last visited 4/19/16). https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/lasers/laws/. (Last visited 4/19/16). https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/bakersfield-man-sentenced-striking-sheriff-s-helicopter-laser (Last visited 4/19/16). https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/bakersfield-resident-sentenced-pointing-laser-kern-county-sheriff-helicopter. (Last visited 4/19/16).
In a widely publicized recent incident, a Virgin Atlantic flight originating at Heathrow bound for New York with 252 passengers on board was forced to turn back after a flight crew "medical issue" was caused by a laser strike shortly after takeoff. http://.bbc.com/news/uk-35575861. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Exposure to laser illumination may cause hazardous effects such as pain, watery eyes, headaches, flash-blindness, distraction or disorientation, loss of depth perception, and aborted takeoffs or landings, in addition to danger during lower level flight.
In the United States, an area with high numbers of laser strikes is the 34 counties encompassed within the United States Judicial District for the Eastern District of California, a judicial district which has been vigorously prosecuting laser strike offenders and securing a large number of convictions resulting in prison sentences and fines. (Albuquerque, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Juan all have high incidence of laser strikes.) As recently as March 7, 2016, that office secured a guilty plea from a thirty-five year-old man with a powerful green laser, about the size of a flashlight in his pocket. The man pleaded guilty to multiple strikes on a California State Highway Patrol airplane. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/clovis-man-pleads-guilty-laser-strikes-chp-plane (Last visited 4/19/16).
The increase in reports of ground based lasers targeting flying aircraft may be due to a number of factors, including the increased availability of inexpensive laser devices on the internet, higher power lasers which can strike aircraft at higher altitudes, and increased reporting by flight crews. Regulatory power for laser light products is delegated to the FDA, and its regulations are found at 21 C.F.R. § 1010.
While some jurisdictions have made interdiction efforts using helicopters and other improved tracking methods, catching laser offenders is difficult. The devices are small, and when extinguished can be easily concealed and the location of the user can be in sparsely populated areas. To respond to the increasing attacks, the FAA launched the Laser Safety Initiative, which provides education on laser hazards and events, news, law and civil penalties, and encourages reporting.
The latest reports indicate that aircraft illuminations by handheld lasers involve green lasers rather than red. This is significant because green lasers are 35 times brighter than red, and the wavelength of green lasers is close to the eye's peak sensitivity when they are dark-adapted. FAA flight simulation studies have shown that the adverse visual effects from laser exposure are especially debilitating when the eyes are adapted to the low-light level of a cockpit at night. http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/laser_hazards_web.pdf. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Restricted airspace surrounding commercial airports, in particular, can provide federal, state and/or local criminal penalties for violation with a laser, even if the operator is not operating the laser within the space, but merely causes the beam to intersect the controlled airspace to target an aircraft. In the United States, laser airspace guidelines can be found in FAA Order JO 7400.2 (Revision "G" as of April 2008). Chapter 29 of the Order provides a comprehensive overview of the FAA's laser guidelines.
In 2011, the FAA announced plans to impose civil penalties against people, including the parents of juveniles, who point a laser into the cockpit of an aircraft. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=12765. (Last visited 4/19/16). The maximum administrative penalty is a fine of $11,000.
The FAA released a legal interpretation which concluded that directing a laser bean into an aircraft cockpit could interfere with a flight crew performing its duties while operating an aircraft, a violation of FAA regulations. http://www.faa.gov/news/media/Laser%20Memorandum%20Final%20060111.pdf. (Last visited 4/19/16). The FAA conducted an analysis of 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 which provides that, "[n]o person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated." However, the FAA standard for liability is higher than the standard for criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 32 and 39A.
Federal regulations prohibiting interference with a crewmember in the performance of their duties had initially been adopted in response to hijackings. However, the FAA legal interpretation concluded that nothing in the regulation specified that the person interfering must be on the airplane. Previously, the FAA had taken enforcement action only against passengers on-board the aircraft that interfere with crewmembers. The maximum civil penalty is $11,000. By June, 2012, the FAA had initiated 28 enforcement actions. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13555. (Last visited 4/19/16).
On February 14, 2012, President Obama signed Public Law 112-95. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 311 amended Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C) Chapter 2 § 39, by adding § 39A, which makes it a federal crime to aim a laser pointer at an aircraft. http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/lasers/laws/. (Last visited 4/19/16). Prior to 2012, federal prosecutions of laser illuminations of aircraft were initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(5), which prohibits interference with the safe operation of an aircraft. Aiming a laser at an aircraft is also prohibited by many state laws.
Between 2005 and 2013, there were 17,725 reported laser strikes in the United States, resulting in 134 arrests. This data suggests that even when limiting the calculation to reported incidents, there is only a 0.75 percent chance of getting caught; a percentage that would decrease if unreported incidents were also considered. There were 80 convictions among the 134 arrests. One reason for the conviction rate of 60 percent is that some who were arrested were minors who were never formally charged. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/blinding-light-the-us-crackdown-on-not-so-harmless-laser-strikes/3/. (Last visited 4/19/16).
One high-profile case involved Sergio Rodriguez, who received a 14-year prison sentence after he was convicted of lasing police and medical helicopters in August, 2012. Karen Escobar, the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California who prosecuted the Escobar case, has pursued more cases against laser perpetrators than any other federal prosecutor. Escobar was quoted as saying:
"At sentencing, [Rodriguez] did not accept responsibility for his actions; he blamed his 2- and 3- year-old children. I believe the evidence showed the laser was a dangerous weapon, and there was intention, supporting a guideline sentence of 168 months. I would not call it harsh. I would say it is a penalty that fits the crime, but I believe that it will have a deterrent effect, and I hope it will." Id.
The Ninth Circuit has since reversed Rodriguez' conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32 and remanded for resentencing for the Section 39A violation. The Ninth Circuit found that the evidence did not support proof of the willfulness requirement for a Section 32 violation, noting that Section 32 was intended to apply to the bin Ladens of the world, not knuckleheads like Rodriguez. On remand, the district court imposed the maximum penalty of five years for the Section 32 violation.
Much of the current focus on laser strikes focuses on interdiction and criminal prosecution. The potential for a laser beam disabling a flight crew, and resulting in a mass tort, creates civil liability questions which have yet to be resolved.
Animal Passengers: Is it a Pet, a Service Animal, an Emotional Support Animal, Or Something Else, and Does It Get a Ride?
Walking through any large airport in 2016, it is likely that departing and arriving passengers will see any number of animals and a wide variety of species, shapes, and sizes. Dogs, cats, birds, rodents, reptiles, pigs and even miniature horses are all found in airports waiting to board. The distinction between service animals, companion animals, emotional support animals, and pets may not always be clear.
Transport of service animals, including emotional support animals is governed by the Air Carrier Access Act ("ACAA"), 49 U.S.C. § 41705 (1986), which incorporates provisions consistent with the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 126 (1990). In contrast to service animals, transport of pets is generally done for an additional fee, which can be significant. Transportation of pets is generally governed by airline and airport policy, so long as policy is consistent with FAA, TSA, USDA and DOT rules and regulations. This can lead to arguably conflicting policies and practices by airports and carriers.
Animals and the Air Carrier Access Act
The ACAA prohibits discrimination by U.S. and foreign air carriers on the basis of physical or mental disability. In 1990, the U.S. Department of Transportation promulgated the official regulations implementing the ACAA. Those rules mandate nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel. 14 CFR Part 382.
The implementation regulations in Part 832, and guidance publications prepared by DOT provide guidance for airline employees and people with disabilities in understanding and applying the ACAA and the provisions of Part 382 with respect to service animals in determining:
(1) whether an animal is a service animal and its user a qualified individual with a disability;
(2) how to accommodate a qualified person with a disability with a service animal in the aircraft cabin; and
(3) when a service animal legally can be refused carriage in the cabin.
The 1996 DOT ACAA guidance manual defines a service animal as "any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If the animal meets this definition, it is considered a service animal regardless of whether it has been licensed or certified by a state or local government." "Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation," (61 FR 56420-56422, (November 1, 1996)).
In 2003, DOT clarified the previous definition of service animal by making it clear that animals that assist persons with disabilities by providing emotional or psychiatric support qualify as service animals. The definition of service animal was modified to clarify that airlines had authority to require that passengers provide documentation of the individual's disability and the medical necessity of the passenger's travel with the animal in cases involving emotional support animals and psychiatric service animals
The DOT has continued to update the guidance materials. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 73 FR 27614, May 13, 2008 as modified by: Correction Notice of 74 FR 11469, March 18, 2009, Correction Notice of 75 FR 44885, July 30, 20010. http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/Part%20382-2008.pdf. (Last visited 4/19/16).
Also of note in the DOT guidance materials:
Pets are not service animals.
Some unusual service animals, including snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents and spiders pose unavoidable safety and/or public health concerns and airlines are not required to transport them in the cabin.
Other unusual service animals such as miniature horses, pigs and donkeys should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
When Part 382 was first promulgated, most service animals were guide or hearing dogs. Since then, a wider variety of animal (g., cats, monkeys, etc.) have been individually trained to assist people with disabilities. Service animals also perform a wider variety of functions than ever before (e.g., alerting a person with epilepsy of imminent seizure onset, pulling a wheelchair, assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance) which can make it difficult for airline employees to distinguish service animals from pets, especially when a passenger does not appear to be disabled, or the animal has no obvious indicators that it is a service animal.
People with disabilities use many different terms to identify animals that can meet the legal definition of "service animal." These range from umbrella terms such as "assistance animal" to specific labels such as "hearing," "signal," "seizure alert," "psychiatric service," "emotional support" animal, etc. that describe how the animal assists a person with a disability.
In a nutshell, the main requirements of Part 382 regarding service animals are:
Carriers shall permit dogs and other service animals used by persons with disabilities to accompany the persons on a flight. § 382.117(a).
Carriers shall accept as evidence that an animal is a service animal identifiers such as identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal.
Carriers shall permit a service animal to accompany a qualified individual with a disability in any seat in which the person sits, unless the animal obstructs an aisle or other area that must remain unobstructed in order to facilitate an emergency evacuation or to comply with FAA regulations.
If a service animal cannot be accommodated at the seat location of the qualified individual with a disability whom the animal is accompanying, the carrier shall offer the passenger the opportunity to move with the animal to a seat location in the same class of service, if present on the aircraft, where the animal can be accommodated, as an alternative to requiring that the animal travel in the cargo hold § 382.117(c).
Carriers shall not impose charges for providing facilities, equipment, or services that are required by this Part to be provided to qualified individuals with a disability § 382.31.
In one recent case, a Washington State trial court analyzed the requirements of the ACAA as applied to an injury to a passenger caused by a Rottweiler service dog. Sullivan v. Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al., Spokane County Case No. 15-02-00227-3, February 29, 2016. Defendant owner of the Rottweiler was initially seated in back of the plane, but moved to row one to accommodate the size of the dog. Plaintiff was seated in row two. On arrival in Spokane, the dog allegedly bit plaintiff's hand as she disembarked.
Plaintiff contended the airline had a duty to protect her and that the animal posed a foreseeable risk. The airline argued that the ACAA preempted, either through conflict or field preemption, the plaintiff's claims. In conducting a preemption analysis, the court noted that airline passenger safety in regards to service animal is pervasively regulated by the ACAA sufficient to find that federal law expressly preempts and state standards of care.
The court granted the airline's motion for summary judgement based on ACAA preemption. The court noted that the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 382.117 did not preclude the Rottweiler from riding on the plane. The airline established, in satisfaction of the statutory requirements that the animal was, in fact, a service animal and they also determined that the animal did not present either a direct threat to the health and safety of others or a significant threat to the disruption of airline service. Evidence was presented that the dog flew on the carrier or its partners twelve times previously without incident. Finally, there were harness markings or other credible assurances provided to establish that the dog was a service animal.
Animals present airlines and airports with a minefield of compliance, liability, public relations and customer service issues which range from fundamental flight safety, to combating abuses of the ACAA in order to obtain free plane tickets for pets. In many cases, it may come down to a judgment call about whether the animal can safely be accommodated, or whether it will disrupt, or even endanger the flight. Airlines also face very high fines for failing to accommodate legitimate service animal accommodation requests.
In January, 2016, a passenger brought a live turkey onto a Delta Airlines flight, claiming the animal was needed for emotional support. Delta noted that the passenger had complied with the rigorous requirements of the ACAA which included providing documentation from a mental health professional that the animal's companionship was necessary for travel.
Delta's spokesperson noted that any therapist can sign off on any kind of animal, however, snakes, spiders and farm poultry are not acceptable. Animals allowed to board as service or emotional support animals under the ACAA are accommodated free of charge, and are not allowed to block emergency exits or occupy seats designed for passengers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/15/someone-just-used-a-federal-law-to-bring-a-live-turkey-on-a-delta-flight/. (Last visited 4/19/16). http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/turkeys-sitting-planes-emotional-support-animals-article-1.2496248. (Last visited 4/19/16).
AviationAviation litigationbird strikeslasersoregon aviationOregon aviation lawyerOregon aviation litigationscott brooksbywheel well stowaways
American Bar Association, Aviation, Casualty, Catastrophic Injury, Commercial Litigation, Compliance, Product Liability, Scott Brooksby, Service animals, Service animals, Wrongful death
Scott Brooksby featured as speaker and moderator regarding birds, pets, lasers, and other hot topics in aviation
On June 1, 2016, Scott Brooksby was featured as a speaker and moderator on a panel entitled "Birds, Pets, Lasers, Stowaways, and Other Hot Topics in Aviation", at the American Bar Association's 22nd Annual National Institute on Aviation Litigation, at the University Club of New York in New York, New York.
Scott and the other distinguished panelists provided an overview of emerging security issues for airlines, airports, manufacturers, and governments with respect to bird and animal strikes, laser strikes, and wheel well stowaways. Each pose the danger of catastrophic mass torts. The topics discussed included the following issues:
• Bird strikes are the second-leading cause of death in aviation, with more than 400 deaths globally. Learn about required airport wildlife management plans and mitigation techniques, and how airports and the government can address liability risks.
• Flight crews are increasingly targets of inexpensive, and increasingly powerful hand-held green lasers. More than 7,000 laser strikes were reported to the FAA in 2015. This panel will discuss efforts by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges, and liability issues arising from laser strikes.
• Pigs, snakes and turkeys are just some of the pets, or emotional support animals, that airlines are confronting. The safety of other passengers, who may be the victims of physical injury of property damage, present liability issues for airports and airlines.
• The number of wheel well stowaway incidents are rising which poses security risks for airports and airlines, and it is not inconceivable that the stowaway with destructive intent could cause a catastrophic mass tort.
aviation accidentsaviation lasersAviation litigationaviation litigatormass tort litigationMass TortsOregon aviation lawyerOregon aviation litigationscott brooksbywheel well stowaways
Aviation, FAA, Germanwings, Scott Brooksby
Scott Brooksby featured as speaker on the Germanwings crash.
Scott Brooksby spoke on a panel in New York, NY at the American Conference Institute's 8th Annual Forum on Defending and Managing Aviation Claims and Litigation. His panel was entitled "SPOTLIGHT ON FLIGHT CREW MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES Post-Germanwings: An In Depth Discussion of the Legal, Regulatory, Public Safety and Ethical Considerations". On June 27, 2016, Scott and other distinguished panelists spoke on the following topics:
• An in depth discussion of aeromedical
issues and developments following last year's
Germanwings crash
• What procedures are currently in place
to identify mental health issues in pilots,
crew-members, air traffic controllers? —
Are they enough?
• Who should be in possession of a
crew-member's mental health information?
• Who has what responsibilities to make reports
of other crew-members' mental health info?
• Who regulates this?
• Assessing considerations of confidentiality
with considerations of public safety
• Under what circumstances can medical data
be shared and with whom?
• What strides is the FAA taking in response to
the Germanwings tragedy? (ARC and Amsis)
• Addressing current issues and challenges related to:
– Awareness and reporting of emotional
and mental health issues
– Methods used to evaluate pilot emotional
and mental health
– Barriers to reporting such issues
– Surveillance and oversight of designees and
aviation industry substance-abuse programs
• A discussion of the ethical challenges and
considerations, and how to best navigate them
aviation lawyerAviation litigationGermanwingsOregon aviation lawyerOregon aviation litigationOregon litigationscott brooksby
Air France, American Bar Association, Aviation, Catastrophic Injury, Commercial Litigation, Forum non conveniens, Litigation, Mass torts, MDL, Scott Brooksby
Scott Brooksby featured as a speaker regarding Air France 447
Scott Brooksby was a featured speaker on a panel discussing District Litigation after Air France 447. Scott was invited to speak at the 3rd Annual Western Regional CLE Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts for the Bar Association of San Francisco. The conference took place in San Francisco, California on May 27, 2016.
Scott and other distinguished panelists discussed the interesting substantive, procedural, and strategic considerations for airlines and other types of manufacturers seeking dismissal in forum non conveniens motions, and for passengers and other plaintiffs seeking to defeat FNC motions in multi-district litigation. Using examples from aviation-related MDLs, and specifically after the groundbreaking MDL involving Air France 447, the panel discussed key aspects of establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign corporate defendants. The panel discussed the complex issues associated with international treaties, choice-of-law, the meaning of an "unavailable forum" and challenging jurisdiction and venue considerations that arise when both U.S. and foreign individuals
are involved.
Moderator: Ann C. Taylor, Locke Lord LLP, Chicago, IL
Panelists: Scott Brooksby, Olson Brooksby, Portland, OR Thad Dameris, Arnold & Porter, Houston, TX
Steve Koh, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA
Steve Marks, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL
Air France 447Aviation litigationMass Tortsmulti-district litigationOregon aviation lawyerOregon product liability lawyerportland oregon aviation lawyerscott brooksby
Aviation, Catastrophic Injury, Commercial Litigation, Litigation, Scott Brooksby, Workplace Injuries, Wrongful death
Bird Strikes and Aviation: Facts and Fault
December 11, 2015 olsonbrooksby
From Scott Brooksby's article, "Bird Strikes and Aviation: Facts and Fault" published in the American Bar Association's Mass Torts Practice Points on December 7, 2015:
Bird strikes are an increasing danger to commercial aviation and result in death and serious injury to passengers and crew, and soaring costs for aircraft damage.
According to Boeing, the first bird strike was recorded by the Wright Brothers in 1905. Now, aircraft-wildlife strikes are the second leading cause of aviation-related fatalities. Globally these strikes have killed over 400 people and destroyed more than 420 aircraft. In addition to birds, wildlife strikes have been reported involving horses, antelope, moose and many other mammals.
The USDA's Airport Wildlife Hazards Program plays a leading role in the supervision and management of aircraft-wildlife strikes. The USDA notes that airport managers must exercise due diligence in managing wildlife hazards to avoid serious liability issues. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations requires that Part 139-certificated airports experiencing hazardous wildlife conditions as defined in 14 C.F.R. section 139.337 to conduct formal wildlife hazard assessments. The certificated airports must develop wildlife hazard management plans as part of the certification standards. Airports are required to employ professional biologists trained in wildlife-hazard management. (14 C.F.R. § 139.337 and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-36). Failure to comply with the regulations can give rise to liability for airport operators.
Data Sampling
According to Boeing, the relevant wildlife-strike facts include:
1. More than 219 people have been killed as a result of bird strikes since 1988.
2. Between 1990 and 2009, bird and small and large mammal strikes have cost U.S. civil aviation $650 million per year.
3. The Air Force sustains about $333 million dollars in damage per year due to bird strikes.
4. About 5,000 bird strikes were reported by the Air Force in 2012.
5. About 9,000 bird and other wildlife strikes were reported for U.S civil aircraft in 2009.
6. The FAA has identified 482 species of birds involved in strikes from 1990-2012.
1. The North American non-migratory Canada goose population increased from 1 million birds in 1990 to 4 million birds in 2009. Concentrations are particularly high at JFK airport and surrounding regions, with the ample grass and wetlands, but populations of various sizes are found near airports across the country.
2. A 12-pound Canada goose struck by an airplane moving at 150 miles per hour during takeoff generates the kinetic energy of a 1000 pound weight dropped from a height of ten feet.
3. Nesting populations of bald eagles increased from 400 pairs in 1970 to 13,000 pairs in 2010. Between 1990 and 2009, 125 bald eagle strikes were reported. The body mass of a bald eagle is 9.1 pounds for males and 11.8 pounds for females.
4. Finally, the population of European starlings is now the second most prevalent bird in America, numbering over 150 million. Often called "silver bullets," they fly at high speed and have a body density that is 27 percent greater than gulls.
In January 2009, U.S. Airways Flight 1549 landed on the Hudson River after multiple Canada goose strikes in flight. As a result, New York City Mayor Michael Bloombergdeclared war on geese. Suzanne Goldenberg, New York Declares War on Geese to Prevent Airport Bird Strikes, The Guardian (June 12, 2009). A mayoral steering committee gave the go-ahead to the USDA to cull geese in a 450-mile area encompassing JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports. Other means of control include:
1. Each summer, teams of USDA goose catchers capture geese that, in the molting condition cannot fly, including offspring that are then taken to slaughterhouses and dispatched. Between 2009 and 2010, 2911 geese were killed.
2. The USDA reports that 80 percent of Canada geese are resident, and remain in place, rather than migrate. The government and airport operators strongly advocate for the culling of non-migratory birds.
3. Discouraging nesting and grazing.
4. Letting grass grow taller, planting unpalatable grasses, reducing standing rainwater, and oiling eggs to prevent hatching.
5. Firing pyrotechnics and propane cannons.
Given the rapid growth of non-migratory birds at some of the busiest airports, and the dramatic increase in flights, it may only be a matter of time before a catastrophic bird or wildlife strike will happen again, with more disastrous results than the extraordinary landing of Flight 1549 on the Hudson.
AviationAviation litigationbird strikescommercial litigationOregon aviation lawyeroregon defense lawyersOregon laworegon personal injury lawpersonal injuryscott brooksby
Scott Brooksby featured as moderator regarding helicopter accidents
Scott Brooksby recently moderated a panel at a prominent aviation conference concerning helicopter accidents. Scott's panel was featured at the American Bar Association's Aviation Litigation National Institute in New York regarding "Helicopter Accidents: A Review of Recent Cases of Interest".
At this prominent aviation conference, Scott was part of a distinguished faculty, which highlighted current developments in aviation law and insurance topics including:
• Safety in the cockpit issues and precedents that developed from the 9/11 litigation and how they relate to the Germanwings tragedy
• The unique challenges involved in emergency medical helicopter services both from a legal and safety perspective
• Choice of forum and other legal issues and precedents arising from several high profile international disasters
• London market claims leaders' perspectives on handling aviation disasters spanning the globe
• Flying special missions for government and industry from explosives to ebola
• New developments in the law of aircraft financier liability in connection with the tortious actions of lessees and operators
• Common themes and issues faced by the trial teams in domestic cases such as the Colgan Air 3407 and Comair 5191
• Ethical considerations when selecting and preparing experts in aviation accident litigation
• The future of aviation, aerospace law, and litigation in connection with drones and commercial space/sub-orbital travel
Scott Brooksby is an aviation lawyer in Portland, Oregon, with experience in a broad variety of aviation topics, including helicopter litigation and crashes.
Aviationaviation accidentsaviation defenseaviation lawaviation lawyersAviation litigationhelicoptersscott brooksby
Aviation, Commercial Litigation, Contracts, Kristin Olson, Leases, Litigation, Scott Brooksby
Lease agreements and consent provisions
May 6, 2015 olsonbrooksby
Lease agreements are common. But what if your lease agreement says that you can't do something without the consent of the lessor? Olson Brooksby deals frequently with airplane lease agreements. For example, the owner of an airplane might have certain repair facilities that it likes and the lease might contain a consent provision that requires the owner to consent to the repair facility if the plane needs repairs. This can be very frustrating for the lessee, who has to pay for the repairs. The lessee might be concerned that the lessor wants an expensive repair facility or a facility that requires transportation of the plane to a faraway place. How do conflicts over these provisions get resolved?
The following is from Kristin Olson and Scott Brooksby's article published in the International Association of Defense Counsel's Business Litigation, "Consent Provisions in Lease Agreements: Must the Lessor Act Reasonably?"
CONSENT PROVISIONS IN LEASE AGREEMENTS: MUST THE LESSOR ACT REASONABLY?
Experienced business litigators are generally familiar with a broad range of real estate, equipment, and other forms of lease agreements, as well as litigation stemming from such agreements. But what happens when a lease contract has a provision that requires the consent of the lessor before the lessee takes a certain action? Does the lessee have recourse against the lessor if the lessee's consent is, for example, withheld arbitrarily?
Equipment or airplane leases provide a useful case study. Provisions in airplane lease agreements, for example, may require consent of the lessor. By way of illustration, an airplane owner (the lessor) leases an airplane to an airline (the lessee) and the lease agreement includes provisions that require that the owner consent to the choice of airplane repair facility if the airplane needs repairs. In cases where there are those types of contractual provisions, the owner might argue that the lease effectively allows it to unilaterally choose the repair facility for the airplane. Under that hypothetical lease provision, even if the airline is allowed to initially choose the facility, the owner must consent to the airline's choice. This may have serious economic consequences for the airline, which may be concerned that the repair facility chosen by the owner is a slower repair facility than the one that the airline would have chosen, forcing the airline to incur loss of use damages. The airline may also be concerned that the repairs conducted at the facility approved by the owner will be more costly—this is particularly a concern if, under the lease, the airline is required to pay for the repairs or if the airline's pilots or mechanics damaged the plane. The airline may also be concerned that the repair facility chosen by, or approved by, the owner is far away (a common issue with airline repair facilities)—particularly if the lease requires that the airline pay for all transport costs to the repair facility.
So what happens? Is the airline subject to the owner's choices? In the hypothetical above, does the owner get to dictate where the airplane is repaired? The answers to those questions vary depending on jurisdiction and whether the lease explicitly requires that the lessor act reasonably, as explained in further detail below.
Does the lease explicitly require that the lessor act reasonably?
A lease may explicitly provide that the lessor's consent "may not be unreasonably withheld." If the lease contains this explicit provision, that is obviously helpful to the lessee. However, it still does not resolve the issue in some jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions require an examination of the facts and circumstances in order to determine whether the withholding of consent was "unreasonable" under the explicit terms of the lease.
For example, in Georgia, even if there is an explicit provision requiring that a lessor's failure to consent be reasonable, there are common law tests of "fairness and commercial reasonableness" that must be applied to the lessor's conduct. WPD Center, LLC v. Watershed, Inc., 765 S.E.2d 531, 534 (Ga. App. 2014). In that case, the court found that there was "a jury issue" as to whether consent was unreasonably withheld concerning a proposed sublease. Id. at 534-35.
In some jurisdictions, courts will not require a lessor to act reasonably unless the lease explicitly requires it.
In New York, if there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in the lease, the court will not impose such a requirement on the lessor.
In General Electric Capital Corp. v. Gary, 2013 WL 390959, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the court examined a loan agreement for the purchase of an aircraft. The loan documents "specified that any assignment, lease or other transfer of any interest in or possession of the Aircraft or any of its parts required prior written approval by the lender. Notably, the agreement did not require the lender to have a reasonable basis for withholding such consent". Id. at *4. The court explained that, under New York law, when "'a contract negotiated at arm's length lacks specific language preventing plaintiff from unreasonably withholding consent, the Court can not and should not rewrite the contract to include such language which neither of the parties saw fit to insert in the contract.'" Id. (quoting Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am. v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 833 F.Supp. 344, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)).
In the Second Circuit case of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Inversiones Errazuiriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 170 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 (2005), the court applied New York law and held that a credit agreement allowed a bank to unreasonably withhold consent on a sale of assets if the other party defaulted on its loans because it was an arms length contract that did not put explicit restrictions on the consent provisions.
Although the court in State Street acknowledged that New York law recognizes the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, it explained that the covenant must be consistent with the explicit terms of the contract before it is applied. Id. at 169-70. The court held that, under the terms of the agreement at issue in State Street, the bank had the right to "'withhold consent for any reason or no reason . . . .'" Id. at 170 (quoting Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am, 833 F.Supp. at 349). The agreement did not explicitly restrict the bank's right to refuse to consent to a sale of assets if the other party defaulted on its loans. Id. The court went on to note that, even if the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were hypothetically applied to these circumstances, "the bank's refusal to consent to such a sale was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary" and was "made for a legitimate business purpose." Id.
Under South Dakota law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is generally applied to every contract. However, as long as the parties act honestly, South Dakota courts will probably broadly enforce most contractual terms that explicitly require consent.
In Taylor Equip., Inc. v. John Deere Co., 98 F.3d 1028, 1029 (8th Cir. 1996), Midcon was John Deere's former industrial equipment dealer. Midcon argued that John Deere breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to approve Midcon's request to assign its dealership to a willing buyer. Id. at 1029-30. As a result, Midcon had to sell its dealership to the approved buyers for a significantly lower amount of money. Id. at 1030. The contract between Midcon and John Deere provided that Midcon could not assign its dealership to any buyer "without the prior written consent of [Deere]." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted.) The court held that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing "cannot override this express term of the contract". Id.
Although "South Dakota law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every contract", id. at 1031, the court explained that the definition of "good faith" is "'honesty in fact in the conduct or the transaction concerned.'" Id. at 1032. Additionally, under South Dakota law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing "does not affect every contract term" and "cannot 'block use of terms that actually appear in the contract.'" Id.
The court explained that, as long as John Deere acted honestly, it had "an unrestricted right to withhold approval" under the contract. Id. at 1034. The court noted that, "'[I]n commercial transactions it does not in the end promote justice to seek strained interpretations in aid of those who do not protect themselves.'" Id.
Michigan law recognizes the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, Michigan courts will generally refuse to apply the covenant of good faith or reasonableness to a contract that explicitly requires prior consent.
In James v. Whirlpool Corp., 806 F. Supp. 835, 838, 840 (E.D. Mo. 1992), the court applied Michigan law to a distributorship contract between St. Louis Appliance Parts, Inc. (SLAP), an appliance part distributor, and Whirlpool, the appliance manufacturer. SLAP argued that Whirlpool breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing because it refused to approve the sale and proposed assignment of SLAP to Aberdeen, another distributor. Id. at 843. The court explained that, "Michigan common law recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that applies to the performance and enforcement of all contracts." Id. However, the court also noted that, under Michigan law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing will only limit the parties' conduct if the covenant does not contradict an explicit provision in the contract. Id. The court held that the contract explicitly restricted SLAP from assigning its rights under the contract without Whirlpool's prior written consent. Id. at 843-44. The contract also provided that Whirlpool could terminate the contract "for a change in management or control which it found unacceptable." Id. at 844. The court therefore refused to apply the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because it would "override the express terms" of the contract. Id.
Under Minnesota law, prior consent requirements in contracts are generally upheld without restriction.
In In re Bellanca Aircraft Corp. v. Anderson-Greenwood Aviation Corp., 850 F.2d 1275 (1988), the court applied Minnesota law and held that Bellanca's contracts with two companies to manufacture aircrafts were worthless assets because both contracts required the consent of the companies before Bellanca could assign the contracts to a different manufacturer. Id. at 1285. Under the contracts, "consent could be withheld for any reason whatsoever, arbitrarily or rationally." Id. The court noted that the duty of good faith under the UCC did not prevent parties from negotiating provisions requiring consent that "may be reasonably or unreasonably withheld." Id. Additionally, the court based its decision on the fact that that the parties did not cite to any common law supporting the idea that the UCC imposes "a duty not to withhold consent to assign unreasonably." Id.
In Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, and Ohio, the courts generally apply the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, even if the contract does not explicitly state that the withholding of consent must be reasonable.
In Larese v. Creamland Dairies, Inc., 767 F.2d 716, 717–18 (10th Cir. 1985), the court applied Colorado law and held that a franchisor may not unreasonably or arbitrarily withhold its consent to transfer rights to a franchise. The court explained that, "the franchisor must bargain for a provision expressly granting the right to withhold consent unreasonably, to insure that the franchisee is put on notice. Since, in this case, the contracts stated only that consent must be obtained, [the franchisor] did not have the right to withhold consent unreasonably." Id. at 718.
In Alaska, "Where the lessor's consent is required before an assignment can be made, he may withhold his consent only where he has reasonable grounds to do so." Hendrickson v. Freericks, 620 P.2d 205, 211 (Alaska 1980).
In Oregon, the lessee has an objectively reasonable expectation that the lessor will consent, especially if the lessor has no objective reason to refuse its consent. See Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. v. Jewett, 892 P.2d 683, 693 (Or. 1995) ("jury could find that [seller's] unilateral action in discontinuing to supply logs frustrated [buyer's] objectively reasonable expectation"). Oregon courts recognize the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as long as it does not contradict an express contractual term. Stevens v. Foren, 959 P.2d 1008, 1012 (Or. App. 1998). In other words, the court will require reasonable conduct as long as the contract does not contain an explicit provision that allows the lessor to unreasonably withhold its consent. Oregon, what is "reasonable" generally depends on the facts and circumstances. Reasonable expectations include the right of either party to further its own legitimate business interests. U.S. Genes v. Vial, 923 P.2d 1322, 1325 (Or. App. 1996).
In Littlejohn v. Parrish, 839 N.E.2d 49, 50 (Ohio App. 2005), the court found that there was an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in a mortgage note, which stated that prepayment was subject to the mortgagee's approval, but did not explicitly include a requirement that the mortgagee act reasonably. The court noted that, under Ohio law, "there is an implied duty of good faith in almost every contract." Id. at 53.
If you are assisting parties in negotiating a contract, it is best if you include explicit provisions concerning consent. If you represent the airplane owner in the introductory hypothetical, you may want to include a provision that states that consent is required and may be unreasonably withheld. If you represent the airline, you obviously want to omit any consent provisions. However, if the airplane owner requires a consent provision to do business, the airline should try to negotiate for a provision that explicitly states that consent may not be unreasonably withheld. The airline could also try to negotiate for a specific list of agreed-to repair facilities in advance.
aviation contractsaviation lawaviation lawyersAviation litigationcommercial litigationcontractskristin olsonlease agreementsolson brooksbyscott brooksby


text:
Technology Tailwinds — Where Are They Taking Us?
The following article was originally published in Filmmaker's Winter, 2021 edition. Digital technologies, incessantly lurching forward, are the ground we filmmakers stand on. No wonder we're often unsteady on our feet. The pandemic has only become an accelerant. Although FaceTime and Skype were around awhile before both became verbs, it took the exigencies of the pandemic to flood our lives with Zoom calling, a digital convenience that has reshaped our relationship to proximity, travel and geography. Just ask Joe Biden. Doesn't every production meeting now take place on Zoom? Production practices with renewed COVID relevance include use of zooms instead […]
by David Leitner on May 13, 2021
"You Have Nine Days to Make an Episode. Go!": DP James Kniest on The Haunting of Bly Manor
With a list of credits that includes Annabelle, Hush and The Bye Bye Man, cinematographer James Kniest has spent a fair share of his career toiling in horror. "I somehow got into doing all these dark genre films and episodics, which I like a lot," said Kniest, "but I often times say jokingly, 'Can't I just do a romantic comedy?'" The Haunting of Bly Manor fulfills half of that request. The second installment in Netflix's Haunting Of anthology series, Bly Manor is a gothic romance that leans heavily into the latter. When the horror does arrive, it's less jump scares and more […]
by Matt Mulcahey on Oct 15, 2020
Shadowplay: The Artistic Benefits and Technical Challenges of Ozark's HDR Workflow
Ozark is a "dark" show in every meaning of the word. The story of a criminal Missouri clan laundering Mexican cartel money through their riverboat casino is literally, metaphorically and photographically bleak. "Ozark is about what happens in the shadows of our society, in the underbelly, and the fear and anxiety that permeates that environment," said cinematographer Armando Salas, ASC. "Everyone can relate to that feeling on some level—the feeling in the pit of your stomach that comes with knowing you're doing something wrong. We try to embed that feeling in the look of the show." Sunlight rarely reaches the […]
by Matt Mulcahey on Jul 7, 2020
Colorist Bryan McMahan on Knight of Cups, Working with Terrence Malick and the HDR Future
The Horatio Alger myth for the Golden Age of Hollywood's studio system involved a bright, ambitious lad working his way up from the mailroom or his post as a clapper boy. By the time Bryan McMahan entered the movie business in the late '70s, that studio system had long crumbled, but his beginnings were every bit as humble. McMahan's first gig was as a film lab janitor. Thirty-odd years later he's Terrence Malick's colorist of choice, having worked as either the digital intermediate colorist or the mastering colorist on The Thin Red Line, The New World, The Tree of Life, […]
by Matt Mulcahey on Jun 27, 2016


Heightened security measures come in response to killing of two soldiers in two separate jihadist-inspired incidents.
Canadian Jewish institutions are stepping up security after the murder of two Canadian soldiers by homegrown pro-jihadist terrorists.
While it is not clear whether the two attacks, which included a shooting Wednesday at the Parliament in the nation's capital, were related, they have shaken a country that has experienced few acts of terrorism and has often felt immune from attack.
On Wednesday in Ottawa, a 32-year-old man identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau stormed a war memorial just off Parliament Hill and shot dead a reservist soldier standing guard with an unloaded weapon. Zehaf-Bibeau, described by some as wearing a keffiyah-like head covering, invaded the main building on Parliament Hill before being shot dead by the Parliament's sergeant-at-arms.
News reports described Rouleau and Zehaf-Bibeau, both recent converts to Islam, as "radicalized" Canadians. The two were among 90 Canadian-born citizens being monitored by domestic security authorities for their expressed sympathies toward extreme Islam.


INBAM FM TAMIL CHRISTIAN RADIO is a not-for-profit, listeners supported radio station that is focused on encouraging, strengthening and edifying the body of Christ with original, anointed and refreshing programs and songs based on the scriptures. More than 1,60,000 people from 212 countries listen to INBAM FM everyday. INBAM FM uses state-of-art equipment and technology to give you the best experience in listening. Now you can experience God's presence from wherever you are through the INBAM FM APP.


Shot blasting is a cleaning process where-by a machine actually removes all of the dirt and grime from any auto party, restoring it to virtual newness. Surface grinding, on the other hand, is limited to clutches only. "Clutches are designed to take wear," Woody describes, "so there are typically a large number of gouges and scratches left on the clutch after use."


Walkin Address: SOUTH INDIA PEST CONTROL SSR Complex, 2nd floor, Khairthabad, Near BSNL Office, Hyderabad.
Business Development Officer Duties andResponsibilities. Analyze current customer base, including portfolios and rolodexes, to identify potential sales opportunities. Build strong relationships with customers, outside business contacts, and company stakeholders.
LOCATION :SSR Complex, 2nd floor, Khairthabad, Near BSNL Office, Hyderabad.


text:
HomeSchaefer School of Engineering & Science Departments Biomedical Engineering Graduate ProgramsBiomedical Engineering Master's
Biomedical Engineering Doctoral Program
Push the possibilities of biomedical solutions with a degree designed to propel your career.
In the biomedical engineering graduate program at Stevens, you'll work with recognized leaders in the field, conduct high-impact research and design life-enhancing technology. Our biomedical engineering master's program graduates thrive in academia, industry, medicine and a range of expanding opportunities in biomedical innovation.
Stevens' multidisciplinary biomedical engineering program blends advanced study in engineering, biology, life sciences, medicine, clinical applications and bioethics. We give you the flexibility to pursue the areas of biomedical engineering that interest you most. You'll investigate emerging areas alongside our actively patenting faculty, test and model new devices in world-class laboratories, and discover how far you can go in an entrepreneurial environment that rewards your scientific rigor and vision.
Our program is design-oriented to help you pursue new technologies from concept through commercialization. And since ideas are only as good as their implementation, we also give you multiple opportunities to work with faculty and industry partners so you leave the program better positioned for success. Whether you're advancing a current career in biomedical engineering or moving into the field, we've structured the program to help you meet your professional goals. After completing our program, students typically find careers in industry, research institutions and clinical institutions. Additionally, students can use our program as a gateway to professional schools like medical, dental, veterinarian and physical therapy.
Our Manhattan-adjacent location allows you to build your professional network in New York, a global hub for pharmaceutical, medical research and technology, while exploring nearby biomedical device companies in New Jersey's booming medical and pharmaceutical industries for career opportunities.
Program: Biomedical Engineering
Department: Biomedical Engineering
Optional research or clinical thesis
Credit for on-the-job projects with your current employer
Research with clinical collaborators
Evening and online courses available
Bioinstrumentation and Neural Engineering
We welcome applicants who have a passion for combining engineering and biology to solve complex problems in medicine. You can apply to biomedical engineering with an undergraduate degree in engineering or physics. Such degrees can include, but are not limited to, concentrations in biomedical, mechanical, electrical or chemical engineering. The program equally benefits applicants currently working in biomedical engineering or candidates transitioning into the field. We invite students without undergraduate engineering degrees to consider applying to the bioengineering master's program.
The biomedical engineering master's program develops in-demand knowledge and skills to put you on track for career success.
U.S. Veterans Affairs
I was really grateful for the opportunity to perform innovative research with faculty who were excellent mentors.
It was because of this research that I managed to obtain my current position as an associate project engineer at The Institute of Musculoskeletal Science & Education (IMSE), a company which designs and…
Anna Kedzierska, Biomedical Engineering Graduate
Work with faculty who are actively patenting and publishing ground-breaking work; provide great mentorship support for your ideas; and the best tools for your research.
See All Biomedical Engineering Faculty
Carrie Perlman
A leader in the field of cardiopulmonary mechanics, Carrie Perlman has had her research successfully funded by NIH and NSF.
More about Carrie Perlman
George McConnell is conducting break-through research in the field of Deep Brain Stimulation for the alleviation of Parkinson's Disease.
More About George McConnell
Hongjun Wang
Hongjun Wang is the biomedical engineering department chair and completes research in tissue engineering and nanomedicine.
More About Hongjun Wang
Vikki Hazelwood
Vikki Hazelwood has received many awards for innovation and entrepreneurship and received a Distinguished Alumni Award at the 2018 Stevens Awards Gala…
More About Vikki Hazelwood
Major advantages of studying biomedical engineering at a premier research institution like Stevens include support for your ideas, great mentors and the best tools for your research.
Learn more about biomedical engineering research at Stevens