# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Hansen v. Arabian American Oil Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386417_1253%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1952 - **Citation:** 344 U.S. 828 ## Text — 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386417_1253%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.