Harman v. Honeywell International

by Sands Anderson PC

The Supreme Court of Virginia’s recent opinion in Harman v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 130627 (June 5, 2014) contains a wealth of analysis on a number of evidentiary rules that every trial lawyer will likely encounter in his or her career.  This legal alert summarizes each of the Court’s rulings on those issues and discusses the potential impact this may have on insurance defense clients across a variety of industries.

This case arises out of a single-engine airplane accident involving a father and son that occurred just outside of Chesterfield, Virginia.  The two estates filed suit against Honeywell International, Inc. alleging a single claim for breach of the warranty.  The estates claimed that the defective design of the Honeywell autopilot system allowed microscopic debris to enter the gear systems causing the plane to become uncontrollable.  Honeywell argued that the pilot’s inexperience caused him to experience “spatial disorientation” once he entered cloud cover.

To support its defense, Honeywell introduced a crash investigation report prepared by Mooney Airplane Company after the accident into evidence at trial.  Mooney manufactured the plane involved in the
accident.  In addition, Honeywell introduced testimony from two lay witnesses, William Abel and Thomas Norman, who were Mr. Grana’s flight instructor and co-owner of the Mooney plane, respectively.  Essentially, their testimony was used to support Honeywell’s theory that Mr. Grana lacked sufficient experience and proper judgment to fly the Mooney plane in poor weather conditions.

First, the Court’s opinion addressed the Mooney crash investigation report which was admitted as a “pamphlet” under the hearsay exception codified in Va. Code § 8.01-401.1.  The report focused on the position of a “jackscrew,” a component in the autopilot system, which the plaintiffs alleged caused the plane to take off in a nose down take-off trim setting.  Virginia Code § 8.01-401.1 allows experts to rely upon during direct examination “statements contained in published treatises, periodicals or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine or other science or art, established as reliable authority by testimony or stipulation.”  The Court held that the Mooney report was erroneously admitted into evidence because it was not the type of authoritative literature contemplated by Va. Code § 8.01-401.1.  First, the report lacked trustworthiness because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party who, at the time it was created, was a defendant in the case.  Second, it was not “established as reliable authority” by Honeywell’s expert because he could not say that similar investigation reports are typically used by experts in the field.

Next, the Court addressed the lay witness testimony offered by Mr. Abel and Mr. Norman.  Mr. Abel testified that the pilot’s decision to fly in the weather conditions that existed made Mr. Abel seriously question the pilot’s judgment.  The estates argued that this testimony lacked sufficient foundation and invaded the province of the jury.  Mr. Norman testified that he had a “healthy fear” of flying the Mooney plane because it was so powerful and that he had never perceived problems with its controls.  The estates argued that Mr. Norman’s subjective feelings and experiences were improper because they were irrelevant and prejudicial.

Citing Rule 2:701 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Court explained that lay witness testimony is admissible if “it is reasonably based upon the personal experience or observations of the witness and will aid the trier of fact in understanding the witness’s perceptions.”  However, the Court cautioned that lay witness opinion testimony is only admissible when the “witnesses information for some reason cannot be adequately conveyed to the court by a detailed recital of the specific facts upon which the opinion is based.”  Ultimately, the Court held that Mr. Abel’s opinion about the pilot’s judgment was inadmissible because Mr. Abel’s recitation of the facts was sufficient by itself to convey the idea that the pilot should not have been flying that day.  In addition, the Court held that Mr. Abel’s opinion that the pilot lacked judgment was essentially an impermissible assessment of the pilot’s culpability.

On the other hand, the Court held that Mr. Norman’s testimony was admissible because it did not address the pilot’s judgment or flying abilities.  Second, Mr. Norman’s testimony regarding the difference between the Mooney plane and a Cesna plane used by the pilot during training was necessary to inform the jury about the difference in speed, power and complexity between the two planes.  This testimony was especially relevant because it bore on the pilot’s ability to handle the Mooney plane on the day of the accident.

In short, the Court’s opinion in Honeywell is an excellent resource for attorneys looking for guidance on some of the subtle nuances of evidentiary law.  This is especially true for defense counsel seeking to admit post-accident investigation reports to support their defense.  In the insurance industry, these reports are commonly prepared after accidents.  Attorneys and their clients should be aware that the Supreme Court has held that these reports do not fall under the “learned treatise” exception  of  Va. Code § 8.01-401.1 to the hearsay rule because they are self-interested, untrustworthy and generally not relied upon by experts.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sands Anderson PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Sands Anderson PC

Sands Anderson PC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.