Date Posted: February 13, 2010 by SF_JD
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment Aircraft Accident
Plaintiff sustained injury after an airplane malfunctioned. Plaintiff claims that defendant inspector's negligence in not discovering a defect in the airplane's muffler caused the accident. Defendant arges in his motion that there is no competent evidence that his negligence was the cause of the accident since he performed an inspection of the muffler, that the muffler was damaged after he inspected it, and that pilot error was the superceding cause. This opposition by cross-defendant argues that the muffler malfunctioned shortly after the inspection and there is a question of fact as to whether inspector's negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury.