{
  "id": 1464489,
  "name": "West Memphis Flying Service, Inc., v. American Aviation & General Insurance Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "West Memphis Flying Service, Inc. v. American Aviation & General Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1949-04-04",
  "docket_number": "4-8782",
  "first_page": "6",
  "last_page": "8",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 Ark. 6"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "219 S.W.2d 215"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 297,
    "char_count": 4018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.050681784707708e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46613373984351986
    },
    "sha256": "0d0b40d35770e58fcf2f1418fc7fa50eb3806fa10aea52ad0ef666d079cad2df",
    "simhash": "1:2eac9b2dea3c8ee2",
    "word_count": 604
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:42:13.131733+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "West Memphis Flying Service, Inc., v. American Aviation & General Insurance Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nA Piper Cub airplane, piloted by Thomas J. Jordan, Jr., crashed and was demolished. It belonged to West Memphis Flying Service and was insured up to $1,750 by American Aviation. When sued the insurer defended on the -ground that under Exclusion (d) of the policy there was no coverage while the craft was being operated in violation of the provisions of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, or its successor, \u201cwith respect to the pilot.\u201d Jordan had a certificate as student pilot, issued by the Administration of Civil Aeronautics, Department of Commerce. Rules prohibit students from piloting an aircraft carrying a passenger. It is stipulated that William A. Goddard, as a passenger, was with Jordan when the crash occurred, and that the plane was being used without the plaintiff\u2019s knowledge or consent. .\nAppellant thinks the trial Court\u2019s conclusion that the plane was not insured against loss in the circumstances shown was due to a misconception of the Commerce Department\u2019s basic rule-making power, and the law. It was shown that prior to 1940 matters pertinent to the controversy here were dealt with by Civil Aeronautics Authority. As thus created, the so-called Authority consisted of a five-man board, with an Administrator.\nIt is contended that the Administrator, alone, was not authorized to issue safety regulations affecting pilots. By Congressional Resolution effective June 30, 1940, name of the five-man Authority was changed to Civil Aeronautics Board. Appellant argues that the Board, formerly known as the Authority, retained power to establish safety standards, and that no such agency as Civil Aeronautics Administration, or Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, is in existence; hence neither could have issued restrictive regulations, as mentioned in the policy, and there was no violation of \u201cprovisions of the Civil Aeronautics Administration.\u201d\nWe readily agree with the trial Court. The Federal Government uses \u201cAdministrator of Civil Aeronautics,\u201d and \u201cCivil Aeronautics Administration\u201d interchangeably. This was testified to by an attorney and aviation expert called by \u00e1ppellant, whose explanation was that rules were made by the Board \u201cand enforced by the Administrator or Administration, whichever you want to call it.\u201d\nThe pilot\u2019s license was captioned, \u201cUnited States .of America, Department of Commerce, Civil Aeronautics Administration.\u201d It was issued \u201cBy direction of the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics.\u201d Mr. Maurer, testifying for appellant, said that members of the public generally refer to the Civil Aeronautics Administration \u201cwhen, practically, they mean the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics.\u201d The Government\u2019s recent publication, \u201cOrganization of Federal Executive Departments\u201d (printed on a sheet 36 by 44 inches) lists \u2014 under the Department of Commerce \u2014 \u201cCivil Aeronautics Administration, Office of the Administrator.\u201d It is dated January 1,1949. \u201cTo accompany Committee Report No. 5.\u201d\nOur view is that \u201cAdministration,\u201d as used in the policy, and as the term was treated by the contending parties, meant the Washington agency having control of aviation, including \u201cBoard,\u201d \u201cAuthority,\u201d \u201cAdministrator.\u201d Congress had lodged with such bureau full power to restrict use of the air in its relation to aviation. The high degree of scientific and practical knowledge, required to make flying reasonably safe justifies the enforcement of rigid rules. In the case at bar the insurer and the insured will be conclusively presumed to have been familiar with these rules and their source. Since the terms \u201cAdministrator,\u201d and \u201cprovisions\u201d must have been understood in the same sense by the contracting parties, effect will be given the exclusion clause, affirming the judgment. . \u25a0",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McDonald, McDonald & Kuhn, Louis E. Blade and Cecil B. Nance, for appellant.",
      "Busbee, Harrison <& Wright, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "West Memphis Flying Service, Inc., v. American Aviation & General Insurance Company.\n4-8782\n219 S. W. 2d 215\nOpinion delivered April 4, 1949.\nMcDonald, McDonald & Kuhn, Louis E. Blade and Cecil B. Nance, for appellant.\nBusbee, Harrison <& Wright, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0006-01",
  "first_page_order": 28,
  "last_page_order": 30
}