Gabriel K.

White (11797)
Daniel S. Garner (14652)
The Utah Trial Lawyers, LLC
10 West 100 South, Suite 450
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Phone: (801) 810-9491
gabriel.white@utahtriallawyers.com
dan.garner@utahtriallawyers.com

IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR EMERY COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

TAILDRAGGER DIRT, LLC, a Utah limited

liability company; CORNERSTONE
AVIATION, INC., a Utah corporation; and COMPLAINT AND JURY
WAYNE GRANT, an individual, DEMAND

Plaintiff, (Tier Three)

v. Case No.

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS Judge

ALLIANCE, INC. a Utah non-profit
corporation.

Defendants.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs Taildragger Dirt, LLC, Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. and Wayne Grant,

by and through their counsel, Gabriel K. White and Daniel S. Garner of The Utah Trial Lawyers,

LLC, hereby complain and allege against Defendant as follows:

 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Taildragger Dirt, LLC (Taildragger) is a Utah limited liability company

carrying on the business of aviation instruction in Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt

Lake County, Utah.

2. Plaintiff Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. (Cornerstone) is a Utah corporation carrying

on the business of aviation instruction in Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt Lake

County, Utah.

3. Plaintiff Wayne Grant is an individual residing in Davis County, state of Utah.

4. Defendant Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), is a Utah nonprofit

corporation which engages in various activities directed at wilderness areas and public land use

issues throughout the state of Utah.

5. This is an action arises from an aviation accident caused by Defendants negligence

in placing obstructions on or adjacent to a runway located in Emory County, Utah, and therefore

Plaintiffs causes of action arose in Emory County. Venue is therefore proper in this court pursuant

to Utah Code Ann. 78B-3-307.

6. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78A-5-102.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of this complaint as though fully

restated herein.

8. On or about September 15, 2016, Plaintiffs were conducting a training flight under

the Cornerstone Aviation certified flight instructor course.

2
 9. Plaintiff Wayne Grant was in command of the aircraft at all times during the flight.

10. Mr. Grant was planning to make a landing on the Hidden Splendor airstrip (the

airstrip), which is a backcountry landing strip located in Emery County, Utah.

11. The airstrip is located on the top of a relatively narrow bluff with steep cliffs on

both sides.

12. Before attempting the landing, Mr. Grant made a surveillance flight over the airstrip

to ensure that the landing strip was clear.

13. He determined that there were no visible obstructions and the airstrip appeared to

be suitable for landing.

14. He then turned the aircraft to approach the airstrip from the South, which took some

time because the approach to land at the airstrip requires a flight out of view of the airfield through

a blind canyon which, if properly flown, produces a short final approach.

15. Upon information and belief, Defendant was using the same area for an activity on

or about the same date.

16. In support of that activity, Defendant placed two portable toilets on and/or

immediately adjacent to the airstrip.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant placed these portable toilets on or adjacent

to the airstrip in the period of time occurring after Mr. Grant made his surveillance flight over the

airstrip but before he made his final approach to land.

3
 18. The portable toilets Defendant chose to place on or adjacent to the airstrip were

painted in colors that nearly perfectly matched the color of the surrounding ground area, effectively

camouflaging them and making them nearly impossible to see from the air.

19. Mr. Grant was only able to see the improperly-placed toilets during the in the

process of landing the plane, and only a few seconds before colliding with one of the toilets.

20. While the planes wheels were on the ground at the time, the airplane was still

moving at high speed as part of the normal landing process.

21. Mr. Grant was not expecting that any portable toilets or other man-made

obstructions would be located on or adjacent to the airstrip. The airstrip is a well-known and

frequently used airstrip located in an isolated area. Placing obstructions (such as these toilets) in

areas where they may interfere with the ability to safely use an airstrip is obviously and

unreasonably dangerous, which is a fact that Defendant either knew or obviously should have

known, given its familiarity with Utahs backcountry areas, and given that it is common knowledge

that planes have wings, and require sufficient clear space around the airstrip for those wings in

order to land safely.

22. Mr. Grant could not turn or otherwise maneuver the aircraft to avoid hitting the

toilets once on the ground, because deviating from the airstrip risked sending the plane into rough

ground at high speed and potentially sending the plane over the cliffs on both sides of the bluff.

23. The aircraft struck one of the toilets, causing severe damage to one of the wings,

that required a series of repairs and inspections before the aircraft could be used in operations

again, both at the scene of the accident and at the manufacturers repair facility.

4
 24. As discussed below, Defendants carelessness in placing obstructions on or

adjacent to the airstrip (especially given that the obstructions were nearly impossible to see at a

distance) was the sole cause of this incident, which has resulted in damages to Plaintiffs, including,

but not limited to the cost of making repairs to the aircraft, loss of use of the aircraft, lost revenue

to all Plaintiffs, who were unable to earn revenue through the use of the aircraft for flight

instruction during the time it was being repaired, as well as damage to Plaintiffs personal and

business reputations, as well as other general and special damages, in an amount to be proven at

trial, but in no case less than $300,000.00.

NEGLIGENCE

25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of this complaint as though fully

restated herein.

26. The standard of care for a reasonable person under the circumstances described

herein imposed a duty on Defendant to refrain from placing (or causing someone else to place)

obstructions on or adjacent to the airstrip.

27. The standard of care for a reasonable person under the circumstances described

herein imposed a duty on Defendant to refrain from placing (or causing someone else to be place)

large obstructions (such as portable toilets) on or adjacent to the airstrip that were difficult to see

because their color provided no contrast with the terrain, making it impossible for them to be seen

from the air, and thus failing to warn pilots that Defendants breach of the standard of care in

locating the obstructions on the airstrip had rendered it unsafe for use.

5
 28. Defendants breaches of the standard of care described herein were the direct and

proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages, which include, but are not limited to, the cost of making

repairs to the aircraft, loss of use of the aircraft for several months, lost revenue to all Plaintiffs,

who were unable to earn revenue through the use of the aircraft for flight instruction during the

time it was being repaired, as well as damage to Plaintiff Wayne Grants personal reputation as a

safe and experienced pilot with decades of commercial, recreational and instructional flying

experience without any accidents prior to this incident, as well as damage to the business

reputations of Plaintiffs Taildragger and Cornerstone Aviation as flight school operators with an

unblemished reputation for providing their clients with safe training prior to this incident, lost

revenue due to this reputational damage, as well as other general and special damages, in an

amount to be proven at trial, but in no case less than $300,000.00.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of this complaint as though fully

restated herein.

30. Upon information and belief, given their familiarity with the area, their status as an

organization that exists to protect wilderness areas in Utah, the fact that they planned to hold an

event of some sort in the area, along with the obvious physical condition of the ground, Defendant

knew their portable toilets were adjacent to or on the airstrip.

31. In the alternative, even if Defendant denies that it had actual knowledge the area

where they were placing their portable toilets was an airstrip, the existence of the airstrip in that

6
location is so obvious on its face that Defendant would have to be blind not to have seen it when

they installed their portable toilets.

32. The airstrip is a long section of flat, clear ground that runs a long distance in a

straight line in a very remote area with little to no human activity. The airstrip has obviously been

cleared on purpose by man-made forces as the area around it is surrounded by scrub brush, and the

airstrip is free from obstructions (other than Defendants toilets).

33. Also, the airstrip begins at the edge of a cliff that drops hundreds, if not thousands

of feet down to the canyon floor below. Indeed, it is simply impossible for Defendant to have

mistaken the airstrip for a road or anything other than a backcountry airstrip.

34. Placing portable toilets (which were effectively camouflaged by their coloration)

on or directly adjacent to the airstrip, was extremely reckless, and in so doing, Defendant failed to

observe even slight care, to a degree that shows Defendants utter indifference to the potential

consequences of their actions.

35. This is demonstrated by the simple fact that Defendant could have avoided this risk

by simply placing their portable toilets a safe distance from the airstrip. This would have required

no additional effort or expense by Defendant, given that they were already placing the toilets in

the general area, and could have simply dropped them further away from the airstrip, instead of

placing them on and/or directly adjacent to the airstrip.

36. Given that Defendant was either on actual or constructive notice of the existence

and location of the airstrip, their actions represent conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless

indifference towards the rights of others, namely the right of Plaintiffs and other backcountry

7
pilots, who should not be put in danger of serious injury or death because of Defendants callous

indifference as to where they located their portable toilets.

37. Upon information or belief, Defendant knew of the substantial risk posed by its

actions (as discussed in the various paragraphs of this complaint) and proceeded to act while

ignoring that risk.

38. Defendants knowing recklessness was unusually egregious, given that the location

and coloration of their portable toilets, along with the popularity of this particular airstrip, were

almost certain to cause a potentially very serious aviation accident. Defendant recklessly

disregarded this risk.

39. For example, had Plaintiff been using a different type of aircraft on the date in

question, had the aircraft been moving faster at the moment of impact, or if the plane had impacted

the obstruction in an area of the plane carrying aviation fuel, the incident could easily have resulted

in several deaths and the complete destruction of the aircraft.

40. Similarly, had a less-experienced pilot in command encountered the danger created

by Defendants reckless disregard for the standard of care, and attempted to avoid the obstructions

by swerving, the plane would have left the runway at high speed, potentially sending it over a steep

cliff, which would have turned the aircraft and its passengers into a smoldering crater at the bottom

of the canyon.

41. Defendants acts and omissions clearly constitute gross negligence, which was the

direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages, as detailed in several other paragraphs of this

8
complaint (which are expressly incorporated herein by reference), and warrants an award of

punitive damages against Defendant.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs do hereby demand a trial by jury for all claims which are entitled to be tried to a

jury pursuant to Utah law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, pursuant to the allegations above, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court

for relief as follows:

1. Based on Plaintiffs first cause of action, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment for money

damages against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to the cost of

repairing the damaged aircraft, lost revenue to all three Plaintiffs due to the inability to use the

aircraft to carry out their respective businesses while it was being repaired, and damage to the

reputation of all three Plaintiffs due to the severe impact of even a single accident on the record of

a pilot or flight instruction company on their reputations, and the importance of reputation in the

flight instruction business, with total damages in an amount to be established at trial, but in no case

less than $300,000.00.

2. Based on Plaintiffs second cause of action, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment for

money damages against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to the cost

of repairing the damaged aircraft, lost revenue to all Plaintiffs due to the inability to use the aircraft

to carry out their respective business activities using the aircraft while it was being repaired, and

damage to the reputation of all three Plaintiffs due to the severe impact of even a single accident

9
on the record of a pilot or flight instruction company on their reputations, and the importance of

reputation in the flight instruction business, with total damages in an amount to be established at

trial, but in no case less than $300,000.00.

3. For an award of punitive damages in an amount deemed appropriate by the jury, given

that Defendants the acts and omissions complained of herein manifest a knowing and reckless

indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others, and created a particularly egregious

and unusually dangerous situation, with the potential for catastrophic consequences, which

Defendant knowingly chose to ignore;

4. For other general or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

5. For pre-and post-judgment interest;

6. For an award of attorney fees and costs;

7. For all other relief the court finds just and proper.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2017.

THE UTAH TRIAL LAWYERS, LLC

/s/ Gabriel K. White
Gabriel K. White
Daniel S. Garner
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Address:
10 West 100 South
Suite 450
Salt Lake City, UT 84101

10