Mauricio Flores v. Skywest, Inc. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 20 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MAURICIO FLORES; CLAUDIA                        No.    20-17393
    FLORES, a married couple,
    D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04175-MTL
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    SKYWEST, INC., a Utah Corporation,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a foreign
    Corporation; AMERICAN EAGLE
    AIRLINES, INC., a foreign Corporation;
    PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC., a foreign
    Corporation; UNKNOWN PARTY, named
    as John Doe Captain; UNKNOWN
    PARTIES, named as John Doe's 1-10, John
    Doe Corporations 1-10,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted November 17, 2021
    Phoenix, Arizona
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and CLIFTON and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
    Dissent by Judge BRESS
    Mauricio Flores, a ramp agent at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, appeals the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment to SkyWest Airlines (“SkyWest”) on his
    negligence claims. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
    novo, Howard v. HMK Holdings, LLC, 
    988 F.3d 1185
    , 1189 (9th Cir. 2021), and
    have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . The question in this case is whether
    Arizona would recognize that SkyWest (through its pilot, Brenden Flygare) owed a
    duty of care to Flores to avoid subjecting him to an unreasonable risk of harm when
    Flygare allegedly ordered or encouraged Flores to open a pressurized aircraft door,
    resulting in injuries to Flores. As no Arizona case answers this question, we must
    predict how the Arizona Supreme Court would resolve it. See, e.g., In re Bartoni-
    Corsi Produce, Inc., 
    130 F.3d 857
    , 861 (9th Cir. 1997). Because we conclude that
    Arizona would not recognize such a duty under Arizona law, we affirm.
    To recover on a negligence claim in Arizona, a plaintiff must first prove “a
    duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care.” Sanders v.
    Alger, 
    394 P.3d 1083
    , 1085 (Ariz. 2017) (quoting Gipson v. Kasey, 
    150 P.3d 228
    ,
    232 (Ariz. 2007)). Whether a duty exists is a pure legal question that is “to be
    determined before the case-specific facts are considered.” Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc.,
    
    416 P.3d 824
    , 828 (Ariz. 2018) (quoting Gipson, 
    150 P.3d at 232
    ). Arizona has
    2
    developed a particular framework for evaluating whether to recognize a particular
    legal duty in tort. Most notably, “foreseeability is not a factor to be considered by
    courts when making determinations of duty.” Quiroz, 416 P.3d at 828 (quoting
    Gipson, 
    150 P.3d at 231
    ). Instead, “duty in Arizona is based on either [1] recognized
    common law special relationships or [2] relationships created by public policy.” Id.
    at 829.
    Under Arizona law, SkyWest did not owe Flores a duty based on any
    recognized special relationship. “Duties based on special relationships may arise
    from several sources, including special relationships recognized by the common law,
    contracts, or ‘conduct undertaken by the defendant.’” Id. (quoting Gipson, 
    150 P.3d at 232
    ). Examples include such recognized relationships as landowner-invitee or
    tavern owner-patron.    Gipson, 
    150 P.3d at 232
    .       A duty based on a special
    relationship also requires a “preexisting relationship[].” Quiroz, 416 P.3d at 829.
    Flores has not shown that the relationship between a pilot and a gate agent is
    sufficiently recognized such that Arizona would deem it a special relationship.
    Neither Stanley v. McCarver, 
    92 P.3d 849
    , 854 (Ariz. 2004), nor Ramsey Air Meds,
    L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc., 
    6 P.3d 315
    , 321 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000), on which
    Flores relies, answer this question. While Flores points to the facts surrounding the
    incident, Arizona has determined that “[a] fact-specific analysis of the relationship
    between the parties is a problematic basis for determining if a duty of care exists.”
    3
    Gipson, 
    150 P.3d at 232
    . Even so, here Flores had been trained by his employer,
    Piedmont Airlines, on safety measures around the aircraft, particularly with respect
    to pressurized doors much like the one giving rise to this litigation. Piedmont was
    in charge of providing ramp services, and a Piedmont employee had improperly
    pressurized the plane. SkyWest’s pilot was outside the airplane when the incident
    occurred and likely entrusted Flores to open the pressurized door based on Flores’s
    expertise. Flores’s reliance on the facts of his case is therefore unpersuasive, even
    assuming we could consider the particular facts at issue in evaluating the duty
    question.
    SkyWest also did not owe a duty to Flores created by public policy. The
    Arizona Supreme Court has said that a “[p]ublic policy creating a duty is based on
    our state and federal statutes and the common law,” but that “[i]n Arizona, our
    primary source for identifying a duty based on public policy is our state statutes.”
    Quiroz, 416 P.3d at 829–30. When analyzing whether a statute creates a duty,
    Arizona courts ask whether the plaintiff “is within the class of persons to be
    protected by the statute and [whether] the harm that occurred . . . is the risk that the
    statute sought to protect against.” Id. at 829 (quoting Gipson, 
    150 P.3d at 233
    ). But
    “in the absence of a statute, [Arizona courts] exercise great restraint in declaring
    public policy,” id. at 830, because “[t]he declaration of public policy is primarily a
    legislative function,” id. (quoting Ray v. Tucson Medical Ctr., 
    230 P.2d 220
    , 229
    4
    (Ariz. 1951)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    In this case, the regulations and statutes that Flores cites were designed to
    protect against negligence in the context of aircraft use, navigation, and piloting.
    The applicable state statutes identify federal regulations as a relevant consideration
    in determining the safe operation of an aircraft. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 28-8280(A).
    FAA regulations define “operate, with respect to aircraft” to mean “use, cause to use
    or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in § 91.13 of this
    chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right
    of legal control.” 
    14 C.F.R. § 1
    .
    Flores relies on federal regulation 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
     as “the applicable
    regulation” for determining whether SkyWest, through Flygare, owed him a duty of
    care. Section 91.13 provides for the careless or reckless operation of an aircraft:
    (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
    operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger
    the life or property of another.
    (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No
    person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air
    navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for
    air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
    discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to
    endanger the life or property of another.
    5
    
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (a), (b).1 Cases construing these federal provisions have concluded
    that they are “principally concerned with safety in connection with operations
    associated with flight.” E.g., Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc., 
    613 F.3d 119
    , 128
    (3d Cir. 2010). Indeed, the Third Circuit panel in Elassaad held that the aircraft in
    that case was not “operated” pursuant to § 91.13(a) because, “[b]y the time of the
    accident, the aircraft had landed, taxied to the gate, and come to a complete stop; the
    crew had already opened the door and lowered the plane’s stairs; and all of the
    passengers other than Elassaad had deplaned.” Id. at 130. The court therefore found
    1
    The Third Circuit panel explains the proper interpretation of § 91.13(a):
    The definitions provided by the Aviation Act also help to elucidate the
    meaning of § 91.13(a). The statute defines “‘operate aircraft’ and
    ‘operation of aircraft’ [to] mean using aircraft for the purposes of air
    navigation, including—(A) the navigation of aircraft; and (B) causing
    or authorizing the operation of aircraft with or without the right of legal
    control of the aircraft.” 
    49 U.S.C. § 40102
    (a)(35). Although the statute
    does not define “air navigation,” it does define two related terms:
    “navigate aircraft” and “air navigation facility.” “‘[N]avigate aircraft’
    and ‘navigation of aircraft’ include piloting aircraft.” § 40102(a)(33).
    “‘[A]ir navigation facility’... includ[es]—(A) a landing area; (B) a light;
    (C) apparatus or equipment for distributing weather information,
    signaling, radio-directional finding, or radio or other electromagnetic
    communication; and (D) another structure or mechanism for guiding or
    controlling flight in the air or the landing and takeoff of aircraft.” §
    40102(a)(4).
    Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc., 
    613 F.3d 119
    , 129–30 (3d Cir. 2010). We do
    not “focus extensively” on Elassaad’s treatment of 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (a) as the
    dissent posits simply because we clarify the Third Circuit’s discussion of 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
     in its entirety.
    6
    “that the aircraft was not being operated for the purpose of air navigation at the time
    of Elassaad’s accident, and thus . . . the standard of care provided by § 91.13(a) did
    not apply to this situation.” Id. at 130. Similarly here, because no passengers were
    on or around the plane, and because the plane had not been prepared for navigation—
    or even entered for that matter—Flygare was not “operating” the aircraft pursuant to
    § 91.13(a).
    The dissent reads Elassaad to support the contention that opening the door to
    an aircraft imparts movement to that aircraft within the meaning of § 91.13(b). But
    as the dissent itself notes, the panel explicitly stated that it would not reach this issue:
    “We do not reach the issue of whether other activities that occur while a plane is on
    the ground, such as taxiing or the process of opening an aircraft’s doors, would
    constitute ‘operations . . . .’” Elassaad, 613 F.3d at 130 n.14 (emphasis added). And
    regardless, the panel’s decision in Elassaad does not support the view that opening
    a door necessarily moves the body of the aircraft. As noted in Elassaad, the phrase
    “operate an aircraft other than for the purpose of air navigation” was used “in order
    to clearly limit the applicability of the rule to those acts which impart some physical
    movement to the aircraft, or involve the manipulation of the controls of the aircraft
    such as starting or running an aircraft engine.” Id. at 130 (quoting Careless or
    Reckless Ground Operation of Aircraft, 
    32 Fed. Reg. 9640
    , 9640–41 (July 4, 1967)).
    This clear limitation appears focused on the controls that a pilot would normally use
    7
    when moving or preparing for the movement of a plane, hence the references,
    “physical movement of the aircraft” and “controls of the aircraft such as starting or
    running an aircraft engine.” Careless or Reckless Ground Operation of Aircraft, 
    32 Fed. Reg. 9640
    , 9640–41. The regulations as written are therefore clear that
    operating an aircraft pertains to aircraft controls and “navigation,” which does not
    encompass opening a pressurized door, particularly when this task is within the
    scope of one’s employment. Because A.R.S. § 28-8280(A) effectively mirrors the
    federal regulations, we similarly do not read it to cover the pilot’s conduct near the
    airplane at the ramp.
    Nor is United States v. St. Amour, 
    886 F.3d 1009
     (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam)
    helpful in determining the definition of “operate,” as it does not pertain to § 91.13
    whatsoever, which is “the applicable regulation” at the center of Flores’s argument.
    But even considering St. Amour solely because it cites the overarching 
    14 C.F.R. § 1.1
    , the case is inapposite; the panel found that pilot Guy St. Amour operated the
    aircraft in that case because he “started the engine of” the aircraft “and taxied to a
    maintenance hangar where he refueled the aircraft to prepare for a flight the next
    day.” Id. at 1015. Indeed, in reaching this conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit panel
    referenced “[a] long line of administrative decisions” in which pilots were found to
    operate aircrafts because they, at a minimum, started or attempted to start an aircraft
    engine. Id. at 1014–15. Nothing in St. Amour or Elassaad suggests that opening an
    8
    aircraft door constitutes “operating” that aircraft; in both cases, it is not the
    imminence of the flight that is key, but the pilot’s operation of controls associated
    with navigation.
    Lastly, though A.R.S. § 28-8273 provides that a pilot and the pilot’s employer
    may be responsible for damage caused by a pilot’s negligence “either in controlling
    the aircraft or while giving instructions to another person,” the Arizona Court of
    Appeals has observed that “[t]he thrust” of this section “is to make a pilot responsible
    for his negligence while operating an aircraft,” National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Rick,
    
    654 P.2d 56
    , 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (emphasis added), similar to the FAA
    regulations and A.R.S. § 28-8280(A). Properly considered, a pilot generally is not
    “operating” a plane when standing outside of it and neither navigating nor piloting
    the aircraft. See 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (b).
    Because under Arizona law SkyWest had no duty of care based on either a
    special relationship or public policy, the district court’s grant of summary judgment
    to SkyWest is
    AFFIRMED.
    9
    FILED
    Flores v. SkyWest, Inc., No. 20-17393
    JAN 20 2022
    BRESS, Circuit Judge, dissenting.                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    I respectfully dissent because I believe Arizona would recognize a duty of
    care between a pilot and a ramp agent for the pilot’s alleged negligence in connection
    with manipulating the plane at the gate, which resulted in serious injuries to the
    plaintiff.
    Arizona recognizes legal duties based on public policy, as set forth in Arizona
    and federal statutes and regulations. See Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc., 
    416 P.3d 824
    , 829–
    30 (Ariz. 2018). Here, an Arizona statute provides that
    A. A pilot is responsible for damage to a person or property that is
    caused by aircraft directed by the pilot or under the pilot’s control
    and that results from the negligence of the pilot, either in controlling
    the aircraft or while giving instructions to another person.
    B. If the pilot is the agent or employee of another, both the pilot and
    the pilot’s principal or employer are responsible for the damage.
    A.R.S. § 28-8273 (emphasis added). Although no Arizona case has authoritatively
    construed this statute, by its plain text it would seem to apply here. When a
    commercial pilot is near the plane he is about to fly and allegedly giving instructions
    to others as to whether or how to manipulate a critical feature of the plane, it is most
    natural to treat the plane as being under the pilot’s direction or control, especially
    given the pilot’s preeminent role in and around planes while at the airport.
    Another Arizona statute similarly provides:
    A person who operates an aircraft in the air, on the ground or on the
    water in a careless or reckless manner that endangers the life or property
    of another is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. In determining whether
    the operation was careless or reckless, the court shall consider the
    standards for safe operation of aircraft prescribed by federal statutes or
    regulations governing aeronautics.
    A.R.S. § 28-8280(A) (emphasis added). This Arizona provision, which explicitly
    refers to aircraft operations on the ground, cross-references federal statutes and
    regulations. Federal regulations contain a similar prohibition as Arizona. See 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (b) (“No person may operate an aircraft . . . on any part of the surface
    of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those
    aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
    manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”) (emphasis added). And
    another federal regulation broadly defines “operate” to mean “use, cause to use or
    authorize to use aircraft . . . .” 
    Id.
     § 1.1.
    Under these provisions, it is difficult to conclude that Flygare, SkyWest’s
    pilot, did not “operate” the aircraft. By Flores’s account (there is a genuine dispute
    of material fact as to what actually happened), Flygare authorized or caused Flores
    to “use” the aircraft when Flygare either urged or effectively ordered Flores to open
    a pressurized aircraft door. And Flores was also “using” the aircraft within the
    meaning of 
    14 C.F.R. § 1.1
    , in the sense that he was preparing it for takeoff and
    flight.
    The available case law suggests that a pilot ordering someone to manipulate
    2
    an aircraft door in preparation for flight would fall under § 91.13(b). In Elassaad v.
    Independence Air, Inc., 
    613 F.3d 119
     (3d Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit held that an
    aircraft was not “operated” under § 91.13 when a passenger was injured descending
    the plane’s stairs. As relevant here, Elassaad found that the flight crew was not
    “operating” the aircraft because “[b]y the time of the accident, the aircraft had
    landed, taxied to the gate, and come to a complete stop; the crew had already opened
    the door and lowered the plane’s stairs; and all of the passengers other than Elassaad
    had deplaned.” Id. at 130. But the overall analysis in Elassaad under 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (b) supports drawing the line at whether movement was imparted to the
    aircraft—which it was here when Flores manipulated a sensitive part of the plane.
    That is quite distinct from what happened in Elassaad, where the flight crew
    “impart[ed]” no movement to the plane when it simply “watch[ed] Elassaad exit the
    plane.” Id. at 130.
    The panel majority errs in maintaining that Elassaad supports its narrow
    understanding of what it means to “operate” an aircraft.         The panel focuses
    extensively on Elassaad’s treatment of 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (a). That subsection is
    titled: “Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation.” 
    Id.
     (emphasis added).
    Accordingly, in evaluating this subsection, the Third Circuit focused on “operations”
    associated with air navigation. Elassaad, 613 F.3d at 129–30. But § 91.13(b) is the
    relevant subsection in this case. And it covers “[a]ircraft operations other than for
    3
    the purpose of air navigation,” including (as here) “on any part of the surface of an
    airport used by aircraft.” 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (b). The panel maintains that “[t]he
    regulations as written are . . . clear that operating an aircraft pertains to aircraft
    controls and ‘navigation.’” But again, § 91.13(b) governs operations on the ground
    “other than for the purpose of air navigation.” Imposing a “navigation” gloss on
    § 91.13(b) is contrary to its text. In any event, the majority’s affirmative reliance on
    Elassaad runs counter to the fact that the Third Circuit in that case specifically noted
    that it did not reach the issue of whether “operating” an aircraft included “the process
    of opening an aircraft’s doors.” Id. at 130 n.14.
    The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. St. Amour, 
    886 F.3d 1009
    (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam), also supports Flores. There, the court held that the
    term “operate” “necessarily encompasses more than the piloting of an aircraft in
    flight.” Id. at 1014. That court noted that the term “operate” includes “the refueling
    of an aircraft for the purpose of flight” and “broadly embraces any use of an aircraft
    for the purpose of air navigation, including flight itself and actions that are
    preparatory or incident to flight.” Id. at 1010, 1014. The court also explained that
    the term “operations” goes beyond “a strict temporal relationship between the use of
    an aircraft and flight.” Id. at 1015. Opening the cabin door is preparatory to flight
    and, indeed, a “necessary precondition,” id., and is thus most reasonably treated as
    part of the aircraft’s operation.
    4
    The panel majority contends that St. Amour is inapposite because its definition
    of operate “does not pertain to § 91.13 whatsoever.” But that is mistaken. St. Amour,
    like this case, “concerns the meaning of the term ‘operates an aircraft’” under federal
    law. Id. at 1013. St. Amour specifically relied on the definition of “operate” in 
    14 C.F.R. § 1.1
    , see 
    id.
     at 1013–14, and that is the same definition of “operate” that
    applies to 
    14 C.F.R. § 91.13
    (b). Indeed, St. Amour held that a defendant had
    “operated” an aircraft when he refueled it for a flight the next day; here, the events
    occurred in connection with an imminent flight. The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning
    in St. Amour persuasively demonstrates that under federal regulations (which
    Arizona law cross-references), “operating” an aircraft is a broader concept than the
    majority here makes it out to be.
    It may be, of course, that Flores was contributorily negligent, which would
    affect whether or how much he could recover. SkyWest may have other defenses as
    well. But the question before us is only whether Flores has identified a cognizable
    legal duty under Arizona law. For the reasons expressed, I believe he has.
    5