Johnson v. Northwest Orient

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: March 24, 1982
• Docket: 81-401
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 81-401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN 1982

TERRY G. JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,

NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES and HAROLD LEINES, Station Manager, Defendant and Respondent

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable James Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Terry G. Johnson, Pro Se, Lolo, Montana For Respondent: Boone, Karlberg and Haddon, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on briefs: February 11, 1982 Decided: #(( 8'8 Filed: MAR 2 5 1982

V Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o r l delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff Terry Johnson sued Northwest Orient

Airlines (Northwest) for canceling a Billings-Missoula

flight. The F o u r t h J u d i c i a l District, i n and f o r M i s s o u l a

County, entered summary judgment for Northwest. The

p l a i n t i f f appeals.

On December 12, 1979, plaintiff bought a round trip

Missoula-Billings ticket from N o r t h w e s t . On December 22,

1979, plaintiff's sckieduled return date, Northwest issued

the plaintiff a boarding pass f o r the Billings-Great Falls-

Iviissoula-Spokane £1 i g h t . But, weather conditions at take-

off time, 9:50 a.m., prevented Northwest from landing in

Missoula. T h e r e f o r e , a l l M i s s o u l a p a s s e n g e r s were p l a c e d o n

a Billings-Helena flight and were then taken by bus from

Helena to Missoula. Plaintiff was offered a check for

$29.70, t h e s a v i n g s on h i s a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The

c h e c k was r e t u r n e d s e v e r a l m o n t h s l a t e r , a f t e r t h i s s u i t was

initiated.

Plaintiff a l l e g e s he arrived horne eight hours late

because of the flight cancellation. He e a r n e d $ 1 5 3 , 0 0 0 in

1 9 7 9 , w o r k i n g 3,ld00 h o u r s a t $ 5 0 a n h o u r . As an insurance

agent, he claims h i s weekends are particularly lucrative,

e a r n i n g him more t h a n $100 a n h o u r f o r t e n h o u r s a d a y . He

is s e e k i n g $1,000 damages f o r t h e l o s s o f a ten-hour day and

$122 r e f u n d f o r h i s p l a n e f a r e .

This appeal revolves around whether the District

Court erred in granting Northwest's motion for summary

j udgment . The District Court determined there were no

material i s s u e s of f a c t and t h a t N o r t h w e s t was e n t i t l e d t o

judgment a s a matter of law. See, Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t w i l l b e u p h e l d u n l e s s

c l e a r l y erroneous. R u l e 52 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.

S i x i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on a p p e a l .

1. Did weather conditions i n Missoula prevent the

p l a n e from l a n d i n g ? Northwest needs t h r e e m i l e s of v i s i b i -

l i t y and a 1300-foot ceiling to land i n Missoula. Common

sense dictates that only the weather conditions existing

prior t o take-off, 9:50 a.m., are pertinent. In t h i s case,

plaintiff's own exhibit from the National Weather Service

s h o w s t h e r e was o n l y o n e a n d o n e - h a l f miles o f v i s i b i l i t y a t

9: 52 a.m. Therefore, weather clearly prevented Northwest

from l a n d i n g i n M i s s o u l a .

2. Did N o r t h w e s t h a v e a legal right to cancel the

Billings-Missoula flight in light of the poor weather?

Civil Aeronautics Board regulations govern rights and

l i a b i l i t i e s between a i r l i n e s and p a s s e n g e r s and c o v e r this

issue. Tishman & L i p p , Inc. v. Delta A i r Lines (2nd C i r .

1 9 6 9 ) , 4 1 3 F.2d 1401. Those r e g u l a t i o n s a u t h o r i z e a i r l i n e s

t o cancel f l i g h t s when n e c e s s a r y . C i v i l A e r o n a u t i c s Board

Tariff, 240 and 2616. Mack v . Eastern A i r Lines (D. Ivlass.

1 9 4 9 ) , 87 F.Supp. 113; see a l s o , J o n e s v . Northwest A i r l i n e s

(Wash. 1945), 157 P.2d 728. Therefore, Northwest acted

within its legal authority in canceling the Billings-

Missoula f l i g h t .

3. Did N o r t h w e s t h a v e a r i g h t t o r e f u s e p l a i n t i f f a

s e a t a f t e r a b o a r d i n g p a s s had been i s s u e d ? A s noted above,

the flight was properly canceled due to adverse weather.

Civil Aeronautics Board Tariff 248(H) does not require

advance n o t i c e t o be g i v e n o f f l i g h t c a n c e l l a t i o n s . There-

fore, Northwest properly excluded plaintiff, even after a b o a r d i n g p a s s had been i s s u e d .

Issues four, five and six are irrelevant if no

l i a b i l i t y is e s t a b l i s h e d .

I n r e v i e w i n g t h e f i r s t t h r e e i s s u e s , we b e l i e v e t h e r e

are no material issues of fact and that Northwest is

e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law. T h e r e f o r e , summary

judgment was properly yranted. Consequently, w e need n o t

address the l a s t three issues.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g m e n t i s a f f i r m e d .

W concur: e

%&4d& CWef J u s t i c e