Order Description;

Write a 2 and 1/2 to 3 page paper (12 point font and double-spaced) as a “Summary” and “Reaction” to the Sample Aviation Case “Newberger v. Pokrass” from pages 146-148 of your text. This case involved the crash of a twin-engine Piper Apache. Start with the title of your paper as Newberger v. Pokrass. Next, under a subheading of “Summary” briefly summarize the case and identify the plantiff, defendant, facts – negligence (res ipsa loquitor), rulings and appeals process from lower to higher court. Finally, under a subheading of “Reaction” offer your confirming or dissenting opinion to the court decisions and personal justifications.



The article examines civil aviation case between two friends namely, Willard Pokrass and Melvin Newberger. The author indicates that Porkas, Newberger, and Seely planned to fly to Wisconsin on December 28, 1962. Pokrass owned the plane identified a two engine aircraft that they planned to use for the flight. Their flight plan did not go as planned when Pokrass had to respond to unfavorable weather condition at Rhinelander forcing them to land at Oshkokosh.

The three companions resumed flight even before they received news of clear weather condition. To make the situation more complicated, Newberger informed Pokrass he had to sleep and requested him to wake him up incase of emergency. Pokrass responded that he was tired too. In other words, the two were tired and needed rest.

Their sleepy conditions contributed into a fatal accident that enticed Newberger file a suit against estate of Pokrass. Newberger complained that Pokrass portrayed a significant level of negligence for flying the airplane while dozing. He even cited that he took a precaution measure of warning Pokrass over a possible occurrence of accident. Pokrass responded that he was aware that the plane was going to hit a tree in his sleepy condition. Apparently, Pokrass was not aware of the accident they were going to encounter.

Eventfully, the pane crushed and burst into flames killing Pokrass and Seely upon burning. Newberger escaped death narrowly but had to encounter serious adverse condition on the scene of accident. He endured a freezing cold night and severe burns for 14 hours before being rescued.

In this case, Neweberger was the plaintiff; he sued the Willard Pokrass estate for injuries that he suffered. The defendant was Pokrass for portraying civil safety rules negligence. Since Pokrass was deceased by then, Willard Pokrass estate was supposed to respond to allegations.

The jury established that Pokrass contributed 85 percent of negligence and but also blamed Newberger for minor negligence, 15 percent. Therefore, the jury instructed the estate of Pokrass to compensate Newbergber $55,000 for suffering, disability, and pain and additional $20,000 to cover for loss of earnings.

Defendants were not satisfied with e verdict prompting them to appeal with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Appellants claimed that was there was no credible evidence indicating pilot negligence, there was no expert to assert negligence, and the compensation amount was in excess. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the case against the appellants by releasing a comprehensive statement. The court indicated Pokrass displayed negligence for flying at a low attitude in hilly terrain, ignored the unfavorable warnings, and slept while flying.

There were no mechanical failures implying that the course of accident was primarily caused by human error. Consequently, the court confirmed with the verdict of the lower court over negligence factor. The court also affirmed that the compensation awarded was ideal. The Wisconsin Supreme courts considered overnight ordeals, suffering, hospitalization, and pain could be covered sufficiently by the indicated amount (LRC, Inc, 2014; Harper et al, 2006) .


This article presents essential fact that courts should consider when passing verdicts over possible negligence in civil industry. The court portrayed high degree of justice by ruling the suit against defendants and even instructing the estate to compensate the plaintiff adequately. In essence, there is no way a pilot should fly an airplane while sleeping and ignore unfavorable weather warning.

Additionally I also believe the Wisconsin Supreme Court did a wonderful job by affirming the lower court verdict by relying on CAB investigation report, defendants must have been satisfied with judgment of the lower court. I value the contents of the stamen as they correspond to consequences of breaking civil aviation safety rules.

In conclusion, I am impressed by the Supreme courts decision on affirming the compensation amount awarded to the plaintiff. Overall, the outcome of the case indicates that pilots should take the needed precautionary measures in the aviation industry.  Therefore, the article is highly interesting to law student like me willing to achieve significant success in lawsuits.

Did you know that effective analysis of concepts requires professionalism in handling academic research Papers? Do no compromise on your grade choose professional Research writers at elitetutorslab.com