0
stratostar

Longmont City Council will take up skydiving noise

Recommended Posts

I think we need a DPREGuy opinion here.
It sounds to me like the appellate court has upheld the decision, but is sending it back down to the lower court to reconsider the orders on awarding of legal fees to the defendant.

ETA http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_30678502/colorado-court-appeals-sides-mile-hi-skydiving-longmont

ETA Entire text of decision (link to CQS website): http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20161222-Appeal-Opinion.pdf
See page 15 "Respondeat Superior";
It looks like the court just wants the lower court to elaborate more on the reason for awarding that portion of the award.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed in the trial court Judge's order awarding attorney's fees (http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/20150728-Order-re-Defendants-Motion-for-Attorney-Fees.pdf, on page 14) that the amount that she awarded for defending against the "respondeat superior" claims is, at most, $4,884.17, and that likely it would be half that (that amount was a lumped with another claim that they got costs for). This is out of a total of $47,984.41 for attorney's fees that MileHi was awarded. (They were also awarded additional $ for expenses).

So I wonder if MileHi will just abandon that part of the award, rather than incur the litigation costs to resolve this one remaining issue in the case. (I'm assuming they wouldn't be entitled to any additional attorney's fees to litigate this to the end.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the footnote comment said was that staying under, (or exceeding) the FAA 65 db standard cannot be used as the sole standard for a nuisance in all cases.
The general noise standard they did note/confirm was, that to be a nuisance the, " ...noise produced by (X) has to be so offensive, annoying or inconvenient to a degree that a normal person would consider it unreasonable." They noted that this is the statutory standard which is here in Colorado. OK so far, as they simply stated what was already contained in the Colorado statute.
Importantly however they continued on, stating that since the City had adopted the Airport Master Plan that DID establish a specific 65db threshold, that in this case it was/is the standard; and stated that the trial court was correct in applying it... This affirms the trial court's legal analysis and her ruling.

Fun stuff: They did note the Plaintiffs' sensitivities to airplane noise were greater than those of normal citizens. I read this as a cleverly worded insult, stated in a 'tongue in cheek manner' but worded to be politically correct. They could have come right out and said the Plaintiffs' sensitivities were manufactured for this lawsuit, unreasonable and that the complainants were not normal. They chose the 'gentle landing' wording approach. Pretty funny, actually.

In my humble opinion, the Ct Appeals did not have to make a remand/reconsideration of the atty fee award on Respondeat Superior, as there was no award made to plaintiffs. Just because the trial court didn't make comments of the merits of it this issue doesn't warrant a remand. I give them no credit for objectivity on that one. So...atty fees, and the issue itself were sent(remanded) back to the trial court for determination or denial of the Respondeat Superior claim and the atty fees resultant. I think they could have-should have left that one alone. Guess they thought the award of the atty fees on that issue was too mean to Plaintiffs?

Respondeat Superior = was (owner personally- or his closely held corporation-Mile Hi), liable for the acts of his contractor/pilots?

Still my opinion: The Ct Appeals shouldn't even care since Plaintiffs were awarded no fees or damages. Can't figure out why they sent that non-issue down for determination.

In all though, Mile Hi was the clear winner and most of the attys fees were affirmed.

It looks to me that the Ct Appeals slapped the Plaintiff's firm down over and over again on the allegations of damages and injuries etc. which were alleged and not proven. Pretty much implied that alleging unprovable-frivolous claims amounts to poor decision making. As I recall, Defendant's appeal atty called it a "shotgun approach". And the Ct Appeals pretty much said so too.

More fun stuff: One or two sentence affirmations of the trial court's summary judgement on numerous issues are equivalent to intellectual 'slap downs'. Embarrassing to have an appeals court uses terms like, "..no evidence", "..not meritorious", "..no genuine disputed issue", "no error" over and over. It's like the Ct Appeals graded many of plaintiff's pleading and trial decisions and gave out a bunch of F's.




Good victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked quite a bit earlier in this thread, why the hell is she targeting only MHS and not the race track that is closer than the airport, to her, and inherently louder? Seems she has something against aviation, skydiving, or maybe she just thinks that since she has such a pitiful, miserable life, that everyone should have the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See attachment from the CQS FB page.
Show of hands: How many people here know the legend of James "Capt Zoom" Campbell?:D:D:D

Here is the video link set to start at the CQS story in that link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdU-0zCeIxQ&t=1m45s
Note that the person in the video is not Campbell.

And here is a link to the story on Campbell's website: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&ID=7159BB75-C072-4096-A255-77F443E84916

Now in a Gibbs v Campbell squabble, which side do I take?:D:D:D
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

James "Capt Zoom" Campbell



Isn't he the aviation magazine guy with the Trump like penchant for suing anyone who says anything bad about him? Maybe he'll dig into a fight with Kimmy!
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Quote

James "Capt Zoom" Campbell



Isn't he the aviation magazine guy with the Trump like penchant for suing anyone who says anything bad about him? Maybe he'll dig into a fight with Kimmy!



That's him!B|

The two best bios on him:
By Wanttaja: http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm
By Ousterhout: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0