Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), a Wisconsin-based not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting family involvement in aviation, held an air show in Oshkosh, Wisc., in July 1999. Laird Doctor was piloting one of the planes in the air show on behalf of his employer, Cavanaugh Flight Museum of Texas, while Howard Pardue piloted another plane in the show on behalf of Breckenridge Air Museum, also of Texas. Doctor’s and Pardue’s planes collided on the runway during the show. Doctor was rendered a quadriplegic from his injuries. Doctor and his wife, Linda, sued EAA and Pardue for negligence under Texas law. The case went to trial. Among other questions, the jury was asked whether Purdue was acting in good faith and in the course and scope of his duties and functions when, as a volunteer in a charitable organization, he collided with Doctor’s plane. The jury answered affirmatively. The jury found EAA, Pardue and Doctor all proximately caused the collision: EAA was 25 percent negligent, Pardue was 25 percent at fault and Doctor was 50 percent negligent. The jury awarded zero damages for Doctor’s past and future physical pain and mental anguish, past and future disfigurement, past and future physical impairment and past medical expenses. The jury awarded $2.5 million for Doctor’s future medical expenses. Though it awarded zero damages for Linda’s past loss of consortium, the jury awarded her $50,000 for her future loss of consortium. The jury also found that at the time of the collision, EAA was a charitable organization and that Pardue was acting in good faith and in the course and scope of his duties and functions as a volunteer of a charitable organization. The trial court thus applied the limitation on damages for charitable organizations found in the Texas Charitable Immunity and Liability Act and awarded Doctor $500,000 from EAA and nothing from Pardue. Doctor argues on appeal that the trial court erred in applying the TCILA. Instead, the trial court should have applied Wisconsin law, which does not cap damages against a charitable organization. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court first examines whether Texas or Wisconsin law should have been applied to EAA. The court looks to Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws ��6 and 145, noting that the various contacts the party and the event had with each state must be weighed against each other, and the public policy of each state must be factored in, too. The court then explains that Texas abolished the common-law doctrine of charitable immunity and replaced it with the TCILA, which limits liability of charitable organizations and its volunteers when certain conditions are met. Specifically, the act limits damages assessed against these organizations and individuals to $500,000 for each individual and $1 million for each single occurrence. In passing the act, the Legislature expressed its intent not to saddle Texas charitable organizations that serve the community with financial burdens that could curtail those services. Wisconsin, too, abolished the common-law doctrine of charitable immunity, but Wisconsin did not pass a statute similar to the TCILA. Instead, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court abolished the common-law doctrine, it stated that public policy organizations that promote justice and social obligations would not themselves seek exemption from similar obligations. The court then notes that the injury in this case occurred in Wisconsin, where EAA was based, and thus concludes that Wisconsin has the dominant public policy interest in determining whether EAA should be held immune from tort liability for the collision. The court further notes that applying Texas law here would thwart Wisconsin’s public policy; on the other hand, it would not thwart Texas policy because the TCILA exists in part to promote Texas charitable organizations, not to protect charitable organizations from outside the state. The court adds that EAA could not have a justified expectation that it would be entitled to the protections afforded under the TCILA for liability arising out of an accident occurring at its Wisconsin air show. “[W]e recognize that Texas is the forum state and that the parties acquiesced to the trial court’s application of Texas law to the liability issues. . . . We also note that the Doctors and Pardue are residents of Texas. However, after considering the choice of law principles in �6 and the factors in �145, we hold that Wisconsin is the State with the most significant relationship to the issue of charitable immunity and that Texas does not have an overriding interest in seeing the Act applied to this case.” The court rejects EAA’s argument that because it has been held to general jurisdiction in Texas does not mean that it should be entitled to the benefits and protections of the TCILA. Instead, the court finds that the trial court erred in concluding that Texas had the most significant relationship to the issue of charitable immunity and in applying the TCILA to limit EAA’s liability. The court next turns to whether Pardue should have been completely immunized by the TCILA. Subsection 84.004(b) states, “Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section . . . a volunteer who is serving as a direct service volunteer of a charitable organization is immune from civil liability for any act or omission resulting in death, damage or injury if the volunteer was acting in good faith and in the course and scope of his duties or functions within the organization.” Subsection (c) states, “A volunteer of a charitable organization is liable to a person for death, damage, or injury to the person or his property proximately caused by any act or omission arising from the operation or use of any motor-driven equipment, including an airplane, to the extent insurance coverage is required . . . and to the extent of any existing insurance coverage applicable to the act or omission.” The court observes that Doctor did not object to the jury charge on Pardue’s good faith as a charitable organization volunteer, i.e., the application of the TCILA to Pardue. Even so, the court notes that in a motion to disregard the jury findings filed after the trial court’s judgment, Doctor complained of the charge because the evidence established as a matter of law that Doctor’s injuries were caused by Pardue’s acts or omissions arising from the operation or use of an airplane. “The bottom line is that the evidence conclusively shows that [Doctor] was injured when, in the course of performing in the air show, his aircraft collided on the runway with an aircraft piloted by Pardue. Thus, the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that [his and his wife's] injuries were proximately caused by an act or omission”arising from the operation or use of . . . an airplane.’ . . . Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in not applying section 84.004(c) of the Act, limiting the liability of Pardue to the extent that he possessed any applicable insurance coverage.” The court then turns to the issue of damages. The court goes over the extensive testimony related to Doctor’s injuries, his inability to care for himself, his depression, his worsening overall health and more. The court notes that it was uncontroverted that Doctor would remain disfigured and physically impaired for the rest of his life. Neither EAA nor Pardue presented any evidence to support the jury’s finding of zero damages for Doctor’s noneconomic damages, consequently, the finding was unsupported by the evidence. The court adds that there is no evidence that the jury incorporated compensation for these injuries in any other category of damages. Having overruled the jury’s finding on this aspect of the damages award, the court finds it unnecessary to go over the evidence supporting or not supporting the other awards, because a new trial will be necessary. OPINION:Jennings, J.; Jennings, Hanks and Evans, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.