Lynne E. Kritter v. Brent Mooring

142 F.4th 267 (4th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 8, 2025 · No. 24-1158

Summary

This Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment in a negligence action arising from a fatal helicopter crash during crop dusting operations. The appellate court held that material factual disputes regarding foreseeability, duty of care, and contributory negligence precluded summary judgment, requiring the issues to be resolved by a jury. Consequently, the court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Berner; Judge Agee; Judge Richardson
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
July 8, 2025
Docket number
24-1158
Procedural posture
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granting summary judgment to defendants.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Lynne E. Kritter, as Executor of the Estate of Eugene John Kritter, III; Kritter Cropdusting, Inc. v. Brent Mooring, as Administrator CTA of the Estate of Murry Rayborn Daw; Daw Farms, Inc.; Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.; William Jordan Elmore
Disposition
remanded

Topics

negligencepremises liabilitycontributory negligencesummary judgmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

tortscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the landowner (Rayborn) and lessee (Daw Farms) owed a duty of care to warn the pilot of the dove wire under North Carolina premises‑liability law.
  2. Whether Nutrien and its consultant Elmore owed a duty of care to warn the pilot under North Carolina undertaking‑liability doctrine.
  3. Whether the pilot was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
  4. Whether the incident‑to‑the‑work exception bars the pilot’s negligence claim.

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of fact exist as to whether the defendants owed a duty to warn of the dove wire.
  2. Summary judgment was improper because factual disputes exist as to whether the consultant had a duty to warn of the wire.
  3. Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of fact exist as to whether the pilot was contributorily negligent.
  4. The incident‑to‑the‑work exception does not apply; the wire was not a danger incident to the pilot’s independent‑contractor work.

Key quotations

Under North Carolina law, whether an injury was foreseeable “depends on the facts of the particular case.” Stein v. Asheville City Bd. of Educ., 626 S.E.2d 263, 267–68 (N.C. 2006).
Summary judgment is appropriate only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Factual background

Eugene Kritter, an experienced helicopter pilot, was hired to crop‑dust a farm in Wayne County, North Carolina. The farm’s owner had strung a low‑hanging dove wire from a deer‑stand pole. Kritter asked the farm’s consultant, Jordan Elmore, whether any hazards existed; Elmore gave no warning about the wire. While flying low, Kritter’s helicopter struck the wire, causing a fatal crash.

Procedural history

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding no duty of care existed and rejecting contributory negligence and incident‑to defenses. The plaintiffs appealed.

Remand instructions

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the finding that genuine issues of fact remain on duty, contributory negligence, and incident‑to issues.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…