Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

Aviation Attorney – A Unique History of Work and Educational Experience

All attorneys need an extremely complicated set of skills in order to be successful and victorious; however, an aviation attorney needs all the skills of any other lawyer plus a very unique history of work and educational experience. Aviation lawyers not only need to be well versed in the typical legal techniques and linguistics, but must also be able to apply that knowledge to the complicated field of aviation law. Therefore, a working knowledge of both private and commercial aviation is required. This necessitates either a strong educational background in commercial flight or direct experience in the flight industry.

Aviation law deals with the legal ramification of commercial, private, and cargo flight accidents, litigation, and assessing and assigning liability where appropriate. While this sounds like an easy enough process, it is far from easy and can be difficult and contentious. Take for example a commercial aircraft that skids off of the runway during takeoff. The airplane in question may have skidded off of the runway because of a mechanical failure – the brakes, wheels, or landing gear did not function properly in which case the manufacturer, the maintenance team, or the airline company may be held liable. If the weather were bad, then the airport authority or the flight tower operator may be held accountable for operating the plane in unsafe circumstances. Finally, the plane may have skidded off of the runway because the pilot or flight team made a mistake in which case the pilot could be held directly accountable.

In order to sift through all of these possibilities for even a simple accident where there is little damage or no injury takes an incredible amount of patience, commitment, and specific knowledge of aviation terminology, physics, and procedural experience. An aviation attorney has usually had some past experience with flight and could have been a commercial pilot in the past. Several lawyers are still currently licensed pilots and fly private planes in their free time. This experience helps a successful lawyer sort through the minutia of the data quickly and efficiently thereby assigning fault and liability more accurately.

Of course not all aviation lawyers were commercial pilots or have a private piloting license. Lawyers that do not have direct piloting experience must find an alternative way to gain the required knowledge that years of experience can earn them. This alternative way is usually through education. Many aviation attorneys, in addition to a law degree which all lawyers have to have, have an additional advanced degree in a field related to flight. These degrees could be in the field of aeronautical engineering, flight design, or flight dynamics. All of these fields help to prepare an individual for the complicated terminology used when trying to sort out an aviation accident.

Aviation law is a complicated legal field. A successful aviation attorney has be well versed in the complex and intricate processes that happen thousands of time a day across the nation at local airports in order to quickly and effectively assign liability where appropriate. In order to do these a lawyer must not only understand the legal aspects of the situation, but the aeronautical aspects of it as well. He or she can do this by either having direct experience as a pilot or through additional education I a related field.

(Tampa lawyer) United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer

More info…
(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, judgment for Defendants is reversed in part, where Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant’s president was acting within the scope of his employment when he stole Plaintiff’s blueprints, but affirmed in part, where another Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.

Cadle Co. v. Neubauer

(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Debt Collection) In an action to collect a loan guaranteed by Defendants, the denial of Defendants’ motion to vacate the District Court’s order substituting Plaintiff for the FDIC is affirmed, where Plaintiff had an interest in the loan and the substitution was a final order.

Szynalski v. Superior Court of LA County

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration) Trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to quash service of process for lack of jurisdiction is denied where plaintiff consented to jurisdiction in California for the purpose of adjudicating issues arising out of the settlement agreement at issue when he accepted the benefits of the court-appointed settlement administrator performing services in California as part of a California case, and had the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction.

Le v. Astrue

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Government Benefits) In an action seeking Social Security disability benefits, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where the Court of Appeals was required to construe Plaintiff’s notice of appeal as encompassing the District Court’s entire disposition.

Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Commercial Law, Consumer Protection Law, Insurance Law) In a class action suit against Farmers Insurance, grant of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is reversed where plaintiff did not carry his burden to show there is no triable issue of fact regarding the element of causation for his standing under the Business and Professions Code to prosecute the Unfair Competition Law cause of action on behalf of the class members. Defendant violated the Insurance Code’s disclosure requirement, as the term “premium” includes a service charge imposed for the payment in full of the stated premium for policy’s one-month term, which was not disclosed in the policy.

tampa divorce attorney

(Tampa attorney) K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations

More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action involving the theft of trade secrets, trial court’s pretrial dismissal of three of plaintiff’s cause of actions for being statutorily preempted is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff forfeited its challenge to the propriety of the pretrial procedure by failing to object to the trial court; 2) trial court did not act prematurely in disposing of plaintiff’s tort claims in pretrial proceedings; and 3) plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as the Act preempts claims based on the same nucleus of facts as trade secret misappropriation.

Data Mfg., Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

(U.S. 8th Cir., Administrative Law, Copyright, Transportation) In a dispute over billing fees, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed in part where all but one of DMI’s claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was not preempted, and that claim is remanded for further proceedings.

United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer

(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, judgment for Defendants is reversed in part, where Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant’s president was acting within the scope of his employment when he stole Plaintiff’s blueprints, but affirmed in part, where another Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.

Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving a vehicle seat control system that provides massage capability, District Court’s of grant summary judgment of dismissal of the complaint because of Plaintiff’s failure to join an alleged co-inventor is reversed, where any contribution co-Defendant made to the invention was insignificant and therefore prevents it from attaining the status of a co-inventor.

Jones v. Blige

(U.S. 6th Cir., Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action based on the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ song, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed where: 1) Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ song; and 2) Defendants wrote their song before the creation of Plaintiffs’ song.

attorney in tampa