Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Hansen v. Arabian American Oil Co.

—

OS ONE 4 ee ee aie

Pek Ae A BERR KS ae

ad

%

:

2

§

z

70 FILED

JUL 2 1952

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

CHARLES ELMORE CEDPLEY

Cle

Les.tK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States.

OCTOBER TERM, 1951.

No. | 73

a

Lerr G. HANSEN,

Petitioner,

—against—

ARABIAN AMERICAN Ort CoMPANY,

Respondent.

——

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

—

Guy O. WALSER,

Attorney for Petitioner,

91 East Main Street,

Bay Shore, N. Y.

Sorenson & MILLer,

Of Counsel.

Tue Court Press, 130 Cedar Street, N. Y. C.

INDEX.

PAGE

The Opinions of the Courts Below ................. 1

Pe ene rng ee eer wee ee eee 2

Pistwhe ae Tewmky: TOON 655 oi ass ox ccsecaessc 2

Tee Gee PR 56 viens is ko cccvseaccsanees 2

Summary Statement of the Matter Involved ........ 3

pence GE TVUOUS ai cos is cctacpunsatercennesa 4

Reasons Relied on for the Granting of the Writ ..... +

CAE Cg iso bs sod 605s SSA RAKE KOR UR Eo OReabae ene 6

RUIN oc SARAR Aas Saw KER USER ECOR A Chea ke Ree eae 7

Avcruorities Crrep:

i

Chicago Convention of December 7, 1944, Article 31.. 2,8 :

4

Civil Aeronautics Authority Act of 19388, 49 U. 8S.

C. A., Section 401, Paragraph (20), sub-paragraph

(c) and (82) and Section 560 (a) .......... 2, 4, 5, 7,8

oie ee i) eer rere terre ee

to

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States,

OCTOBER TERM, 1951.

No.

pecleamenae pails

Laiv G. TANsten,

Petitioner,

Aust

Anapian Awenteaxn Ou Coxwrany,

D> mr ,

he SDONTENE,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Vo the Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United

Slates:

The petitioner, Leif Go Hausen, prays that a writ

of certiorart issue to review the judgment of the

Court of Appeals for the Seeond Cireuit: entered in

the above cause on April 3, 1992, attirming the order

ef the District Court) for the Eastern Distriet of

New York dismissing the complaint ou motion for

summary jgudgment and from the judgment entered

thereon, and respectfully represents ;

The Opinions of the Courts Below.

The opinion of Galstoun, Distriet Judge, appears

In the record at pages o0 to O38 and the opinion of the

PLD LOE FEELIN LESLIE SEE OLIN ZED I APE etre

SRNR

ore CNC taba

Beret pete verge Tes eg

9

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit appears in

the record at page 59.

Jurisdiction.

(1) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

28 U.S. C., Section 1254 (1).

(2) The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit affirming the judgment of the Dis-

trict Court was entered on April 3, 1952, and judg-

ment thereon entered in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New York on June

11, 1952.

Statute and Treaty Involved.

The statute involved is the Civil Aeronautics

Authority Act of 1938, 49 U. S. C. A., Section 401,

Paragraph (20), sub-paragraph (¢) and Paragraph

(32) and Section 560(a).

The Treaty involved is the Chicago Convention of

December 7, 1944, Article 31 thereof.

The pertinent parts of both are set forth in the

appendix infra.

The Question Presented.

The sole question involved is whether under the

contract the defendant-appellee could order the plain-

tiff-appellant to fly United States registered planes

yee

3

which were not flown and maintained in conformity

with the safety regulations of the Civil Aeronautics

Authority of the United States.

Summary Statement of the Matter Involved.

The petitioner, Leif G. Hansen, was employed as an

airplane pilot by the defendant-appellee, Arabian

American Oil Company, pursuant to a written con-

tract made in the State of New York and dated

October 1, 1947, under the terms of which contract

petitioner-appellant agreed to serve for a minimum

period of thirty months in the zone of the company’s

operations abroad in Saudi Arabia, and the sur-

rounding area.

It is conceded by the defendant-appellee that all of

its aireraft were licensed by the Civil Aeronautics

Authority of the United States Government (see page

4 of the defendant-appellee’s moving affidavit which

appears in the record at page 22). The petitioner-

appellant alleged that the defendant-appellee failed

to maintain the aircraft in accordance with the CAA

rules and regulations and violated said rules and

regulations on numerous occasions, particularly the

safety regulations, and that when the petitioner-

appellant complained of these violations and in par-

ticular of the fact that the Company had unlawfully

caused a single engine rating to be added to his license,

he was then given the option of quitting or being

fired by his superiors.

bet ar.

POLO LLY FOOL, ELIT MOTE PE TOT GE am

oe Ted

YK RQ

Specification of Errors.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Cireuit erred:

(1) In not reversing the judgment below and in

not holding that the provisions of the Civil Aero-

nauties Authority Act of 1938 apply; (2) in affirming

the judgment of the District Court.

Reasons Relied on for the Granting of the Writ.

The Court of Appeals, in its opinion, states as

follows:

‘*) . . The argument appears to be that, since

Article 31 of the Convention of International

Civil Aviation provided that all aireraft ‘en-

gaged in international navigation’ must — be

provided with a ‘certificate of air worthiness’

issued hy the state where it was ‘registered.’*

the contract in effect provided that all planes

which the plaintiff was to be called upon to fly

should have such certificates. We will assume

arguendo that the contract did imply that all

planes registered in the United States should

carry the prescribed certificates; and we may

still further assume that all planes, registered

in any other state which was a party to the Con-

vention of 1946, should earry certificates of air-

worthiness of that state. We do not see how

that can be relevant, since Saudi Arabia was not

a party to the Convention and no planes regis-

tered by it were obliged to carry any such

certificate.

* Vol. 61, Part 2. p. 1189. St. at L.

5)

Be that as it may, the plaintiff does not assert

that he was asked to fly any plane registered in

the United States which did not have a U.S.

certificate, or otherwise conform to U. S. regula-

tions; nor does he assert that he was asked to

fly any plane registered elsewhere which did not

have its proper certificate. What he does assert

is that he was asked to fly some unidentified

planes which did not conform to the requirements

for U. 8. planes; and that argument presupposes

that because the contract was executed in New

York, it incorporated as a term that all planes

which he could be called upon to fly, must meet

the standards of the United States no matter

where they were registered. . -

This is not a correct statement of the facts nor of

the contentions of the petitioner-appellant as evidenced

by the record. The Court assumes arguendo that the

contract did imply that all planes registered in the

United States should carry the prescribed certificates.

In this connection, it is our understanding that the

Civil Aeronauties Authority Act of 1938, 49 U.S.

C. A., Section 560(a) (see appendix) requires that

all planes registered in the United States must carry

certificates of airworthiness and otherwise comply

with the regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Author-

ity Act. As we understand the Court, it says that

conceding that point it does not see its relevancy, since

Saudi Arabia was not a party to the Convention and

no planes registered by it were obliged to carry any

such certificate. As to this statement we have no

comment, as under the conceded facts in this ease

there is no question involving any planes registered

by Saudi Arabia. The Court, in its opinion, then

oR RNY BONE Le ON ERD ASP Ma eI ABAD

2 RN ene

INE RE RS Oren pee

6

states that the plaintiff does not assert that he was

asked to fly any plane registered in the United States

which did not have the prescribed certificate or other-

Wise conform to United States regulations. This

statement is directly contrary to the conceded facts

of the case. It is conceded in the original moving

affidavit of the defendant-appellee. (See pages 21

and 22 of the record.) There is no question here of

flying some unidentified planes to which the Court

refers. It is conceded throughout that all of the

planes which the petitioner-appellant flew or was

asked to fly were registered with the Civil Aeronautics

Authority of the United States.

Plaintiff's argument on this point is simply that

by registering its aircraft with the Civil Aeronautics

Authority of the United States, defendant-appellee

subjected itself to the Civil Aeronautics Authority

Act and the rules and regulations of the Civil Aero-

nauties Authority of the United States. By so doing,

it held out to the world and particularly to any Amer-

ican pilot flying the aircraft, that the aircraft were

to be maintained and flown in accordance with the

Civil Aeronautics Authority regulations of the United

States, including the safety regulations and the air-

worthiness procedures of the Chicago Convention.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that. this

petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted,

Guy O. WaLsER,

Attorney for Petitioner.

Sorenson & MILLER,

Of Counsel.

~]

APPENDIX.

Civil Aeronautics Authority Act of 1938

49 U.8.C. A.

Section 401, Paragraph (20)

Interstate air commerce’, “overseas air commerce”.

and “foreign air commerce”, respectively, mean the

carriage by aireraft of persons or property for com-

pensation or hire, or the carriage of mail by aircraft.

or the operation or navigation of aircraft. in the

conduet or furtherance of a business or voeation. in

commerce between, 2.) .—

Sub-paragraph (¢)

a place in the United States and any place outside

thereof, whether such commerce moves Wholly by air-

eraft or partly by aircraft and partly by other forms

of transportation.

Paragraph (32) ‘United States’ means the several

States, the District of Columbia, and the several Terri-

tories and possessions of the United States. including

the Territorial waters and the overlying air space

thereof.

SECTION 560

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(1) For any person te operate in air commerce any

civil aireraft for which there is not currently in effect

an airworthiness certificate, or in’ violation of. the

terms of any such certificate;

(2) For any person to serve in any capacity as an

8

airman in connection with any civil aireraft used in

air commerce without an airman certificate author-

izing him to serve in such capacity, or in violation

of the terms of any such certificate ;

(3) For any person to employ for service in connec-

tion with any civil aircraft used in air commerce an

airman who does not have an airman certificate au-

thorizing him to serve in the capacity for which he

is emploved ;

(4) For any person to operate as an air carrier with-

out an air carrier operating certificate, or in violation

of the terms of any such certificate; and

(5) For any person to operate aircraft in air com-

merce in violation of any other rule, regulation, or

certificate of the Board or Administrator of Civil

Aeronauties under this subchapter.

The Chicago Convention of December 7, 1944

Article 51

Every aircraft engaged in international navigation

shall be provided with a certificate of airworthiness

issued or rendered valid by the State in which it is

registered.

LYS

3 ‘

7)

oO ~

f chad ahand

| a) FORO

alt i

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United Siates

October Term, 1951

i 73

LEIF G. HANSEN,

Petitioner,

against

ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY,

Respondent.

—————

———

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT

OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

Lovis F. Hurrexiocuer,

Attorney for Respondents.

Tuomas F. Barry,

of Counsel.

Supreme Printinc Co.. Inc. 41 Murray Street, N. Y. 7, BArctay 7-0349

QB 49

°

=

-

a hil ¢ cn

i =

t

=

=

—

NEES RA DOES z

PES OLR TR a IH «oh