Thanks to Rod Dean, the plane from the "Miracle on the Hudson" Finally Arrives in Charlotte!
Most of you are aware of the incident involving flight 1549 from New York to Charlotte that crash landed on the Hudson River on January 15, 2009 after both engines failed due to striking a flock of birds. Due to the extraordinary skills of the pilots, the plane landed intact and all passengers and crew survived. The incident became known as the "Miracle on the Hudson".
In recent weeks, news articles have circulated indicating that the plane involved in the crash landing is being transported to Charlotte and will be placed in the Carolinas Aviation Museum at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport. What you may not have heard is just how Charlotte managed to beat out the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and other prominent aviation museums around the country to secure this plane. Also, how our senior partner, Rod Dean, played a significant role in bringing the plane home to Charlotte.
Rod, who has experience as a pilot, is a member of the Board of Directors for the Aviation Museum and provides legal counsel to the Museum on a number of different issues. It was Rod who first suggested to the Museum Board that they should bring the plane, or at least a part of it, to Charlotte. He suggested that Charlotte would be a natural home for the aircraft given that the plane was on its way to Charlotte when it landed in the river, as well as the fact that many of the passengers on the flight were residents of Charlotte. US Airways, the owner of the plane, also has its largest hub in Charlotte. Rod and the other members of the Aviation Museum, through a lot of hard work and diligent negotiation, were able to persuade the insurance companies and U.S. Airways that the plane rightfully belonged in Charlotte.
Once the agreement was reached to bring flight 1549 home to Charlotte, Rod worked with the parties to draft all of the necessary legal documentation to obtain and transport the plane to its final destination at the Carolinas Aviation Museum. The final transport, preparation and display may not be completed until the end of 2011.
The attorneys and staff at Dean and Gibson are proud of the contribution Rod has made in bringing home this piece of history.
Recent Dean & Gibson Cases
Mike Gibson recently obtained a defense verdict in a trial involving claims for Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. The case involved the death of a fishing guide on an expedition in Alaska. The young man was killed by a shotgun discharged at point blank range. While out fishing with the group, the victim walked away from the other members and was found alone with the gun immediately after the others heard the gun discharge. The death was ruled a suicide and this was reported to the family by the owner of the guide service, who had been on the expedition and who knew the victim's family. The family rejected the cause of death and sued the owner of the guide service and his wife for falsely reporting the death was suicide. Plaintiffs alleged the shooting was an accident and that the owner made up the story of suicide in order to avoid liability for the death. The defense was able to show the jury that the death was in fact a suicide and that the alleged emotional distress was caused by the loss of a loved one, not by being told about it after the fact. After a dramatic two week trial that involved compelling photographic and physical evidence, testimony from witnesses in Alaska and a number of competing experts, the jury ruled in favor of the defense.
Mike Gibson also recently concluded a 6 week trial involving construction defect claims in which the Plaintiff was seeking over $5 Million in damages. The case involved a golf course built in a flood plain, damaged by significant mud and sediment after repeated flooding events. Mike Gibson represented one of three defendants involved in the construction of a silt retention pond that Plaintiff alleged was the cause of the flooding and damage. In fact there were clear defects in the retention pond. Defendants argued the flooding was due to the course being in a flood plain as was shown by the fact that the golf course continued to flood even after repairs were made to the retention pond. The Defendants all disputed who was responsible for the alleged defects in the pond, with the co-defendants pointing the finger at Mike's client and refusing to make any significant contribution towards settlement. Finally, all Defendants argued that Plaintiff's damages were severely over-inflated. Although the golf course was located in the rural part of a county, far away from any metropolitan areas, and despite figures showing low annual revenue, Plaintiff contended the course would generate revenue in the future comparable to professional courses. After 6 weeks of trial and testimony from approximately 20 fact and expert witnesses, Mike succeeded in holding the jury verdict to less than 14% of what Plaintiff was claiming. Although the jury found the client liable, Mike was also able to convince the jury that the 2 co-defendants were liable as well, reducing the client's exposure to 1/3 of the verdict.
Mike Gibson is a Partner with Dean & Gibson and has been with the firm since 1989. Mike practices in the areas of general civil litigation, insurance coverage, construction litigation, trucking accidents and regulation, professional liability, and catastrophic injury and death.
Tom Nance recently obtained Summary Judgment for the Defendant in a wrongful death case arising out of a plant explosion. Plaintiff was seeking $8 Million from all defendants. The estate sued the manufacturers of different components of the plant alleging negligence in the design, manufacture and installation of the plant components, as well as negligence in providing inadequate instructions and warnings about the proper operation and dangers of the plant. The estate also sued the decedent's supervisors and a parent company of the employer, alleging the plant was in a deteriorated and dangerous condition, that the decedent had warned of the dangers and requested money for repairs, and that such requests had been denied. Following a half day argument before the court, Tom was able to obtain Summary Judgment, dismissing the claims against the client. There were a number of grounds supporting the Motion, including the North Carolina Statute of Repose and statutory product liability defenses based on misuse and abuse of the client's component and failure to follow the instructions for operation of the component. The case remains pending as to a number of the other defendants.
Tom Nance is a Partner with Dean & Gibson and has been with the firm since 1999. His practice includes general civil litigation, products liability, construction litigation, insurance coverage, premises liability and catastrophic injury and death.
Susan Hofer also recently obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of a hospital being sued in a slip and fall case. The Plaintiff was a supervisor for environmental services for a third party employer at the hospital. Plaintiff was walking backwards while pulling a trash can across a room when she fell over a mop drain basin, suffered serious injuries and incurred nearly $100,000 in medical expenses. Plaintiff demanded $300,000 to settle the case. Susan succeeded in having the case dismissed by showing the Plaintiff had known before the accident that the basin was there and the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent for walking backwards towards the basin without looking.
Susan also obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of an aviation client when a crewmember claimed he fell and suffered serious knee injuries while trying to step over a bag of trash on a jetway while exiting an airplane. In this case, the court concluded that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the Plaintiff saw the trash bag, had an alternate way to exit the plane in order to avoid the trash bag, and consciously tried to step over and around the trash bag thereby falling.
Susan Hofer is a Partner with Dean & Gibson and has been with the firm since 2000. Susan practices defense litigation in a number of areas but focuses her practice primarily on aviation litigation.
