Law Assignment (2007-10-3)
On 28 November 1977 Air New Zealand flight 901 crashed into Mt Erebus in Antarctica killing all 257 people on board. The cause of the crash was the interaction a series of entries of co-ordinates into the plane’s navigation computer, including an erroneous entry from years earlier, its correction on the morning of the crash and entries of the flight plan. The result was that the pilots thought they were flying over low flat ground when they were in fact flying directly into the mountain. There was a white-out at the time. No one action was the cause of the crash; it was the cumulative result of the series of actions.
If you want to know more about the crash and its circumstances, see the Wikipedia entry and the sources there cited. (A note of caution: some of the details towards the end of the article are gruesome.)
On the basis that the requirements for the crime of criminally negligent killing could be made out were the required actions and mental state to have been those of a human being, could Air New Zealand have been criminally responsible for the loss of life? What are the doctrines or techniques available in law to impose liability on corporations and which ones would apply and which ones would not? Consider the situation for crimes in both State and Commonwealth jurisdictions. Give reasons.
In your answer, consider that accidents often happen due to systemic failure and that lines of responsibility, even those responsible if there is negligence, are often impossible to trace.
Flight 901 Crash Analysis
On 28 November 1979, Air New Zealand DC-10 (Flight TE-901) on a scheduled scenic flight crashed into Mount Erebus’s northern slopes and all 237 passengers and 20 crew were killed.
Released two official reports about the accidents, but who should responsible for the accident is still the controversial question. Previous investigation found the disaster was caused by an alteration to the original flight plan causing the crew members to misjudge their co-ordinates below the safety altitude in a white-out condition. Although the crash was made up of cumulative reasons, several evidence shows that Air New Zealand Limited has criminal liability for the disaster.
Firstly, altering the flight plan omitted to tell the aircrews indicate there was negligence in airline’s management. An employer is vicariously liable for negligent acts or omissions by his employee in the course of employment whether or not such act or omission was specifically authorized by the employer. For instance, In the court case of MBank El Paso v. Sanchez, 836 S.W.2d 151, where a hired repossessed towed away a car even after the registered owner locked herself in it, the court decided that this was an unlawful breach of the peace and declared the repossession invalid. The debtor was also awarded $1,200,000 in damages from the bank [1], Thus Air New Zealand has vicarious liability. When turns to the direct liability, which means Legal obligation of an individual or corporation because of negligent acts or omissions resulting in bodily injury and/or property damage or destruction to another party. Because 257 people were died in the crash, hence Air New Zealand has direct liability.
The crew descended beneath the minimum altitude permitted by the airline might be the second reason. Both Captain Jim Collins and co-pilot Greg Cassin were experienced pilots, they should know what the permission altitude is. However, the cockpit voice recorder indicate they did not demur the command 
when the First Officer in the McMurdo Station require them descend and maintain flight level one six zero. Because the company liable for employees’ acts, so Air New Zealand was liable. Both company and wrong-doer could be liable, Captains were liable as well. Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Obviously, Air New Zealand could be sued within the strict liability.
On the other hand, in some instances of fraud, the court may pierce the veil of incorporation. Most fraud is also a breach of the criminal law and any evidence obtained for the purposes of a criminal trial is usually admissible in civil proceedings. But criminal prosecutions take priority, so if civil proceedings uncover evidence of criminality, the civil action may be stayed pending the outcome of any criminal investigation. [1]
In Air New Zealand 1979 Antarctic flight brochure, all pictures were taken under the approved altitude without illumination, which cause to customers.
Besides, Ron Chippindale released an Official accident report on 12 June 1980 claim that pilot error was the principal cause and the Air New Zealand was innocent. It is worth mention that New Zealand Government is the biggest shareholder of the Air New Zealand Limited. [2] However, Mahon Inquiry on 27 April 1981 shows an opposite result. Recent released archives suggest Ron Chippindale was tried to cover up some fact of the crash. Ron Chippindale and Air New Zealand may face the sue under CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995, such as 24. Mistake of fact, 134. Conspiracy to bring false accusation, and so on.
What’s more, archives shows other pilots regularly flew low under the safety altitude to give their passengers a better view before the air crash since 1977. According to this, it can be assumed that the directors of Air New Zealand were breach of duties on Consumer Protection.
In conclusion, Air New Zealand Limited has criminally liability for the catastrophe.
一晚上憋出来的东西，太久没动笔，真是惨不忍睹：（