by D. W. Carter
Nonetheless, by combining the troubled mechanical history of Raggy 42—the broken boom that caused a last-minute switch in flight crews, numerous write-ups for autopilot malfunction, issues with the rudder and autopilot only days before—eyewitness testimony, the manner in which it crashed and the detailed report provided by the air force, a clearer picture emerges. All of these factors combined depict a failed autopilot, an unscheduled rudder deflection and two pilots fighting desperately to save a doomed plane headed into an upside-down nose-dive at 20th and Piatt.358 Given the scarcity of evidence to the contrary, little suggests otherwise.
15
THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS
As you know, lawyers are natural procrastinators and when this is combined with military paper shuffling the results can be most exasperating.
—Russell E. McClure, Wichita City Manager, 1966359
Shortly after the KC-135 nearly leveled the entire block of North Piatt Street, Lorenzo Pouncil—whose home was twenty-five feet away from the first house burned to the ground—received a check in the mail for one dollar. It was from the air force to repair a pole lamp. “If that’s the way they want to do…that’s all right,” said Pouncil after deciding he would not petition the government for any money to repair his home. Overwhelmed with the mountain of paperwork, the confusing forms and the lengthy process to receive aid, Pouncil decided, “The Lord will take care of us.”360 He was not alone. The KC-135 crash not only destroyed many of the indigent families living on Piatt—in some cases as many as six family members all perishing together—but also the delayed, deficient and disproportionate settlements ensured only more grief to come.
Today’s society is a highly litigious one. Lawsuits are abundant, frivolous or not, and lawmakers are more apt to place restrictions on the amount victims may receive from personal injury or death resulting from accidents. The subsequent harm from the Piatt Street crash, however, was a far cry from the examples of frivolous lawsuits and million-dollar settlements arising from tort cases today. Since the time of America’s inception, individuals have accessed the courts to resolve disputes. And despite its many faults, the justice system in America today remains one of the best in the world. While it is true that monetary settlements can never replace the loss of life, they do, in some cases, help families move on with their lives and pay for the many property, hospital and funeral bills that arise after disaster strikes. Nevertheless, the settlements received by the victims on Piatt Street provided very little comfort, if any.
RESTRICTIVE LAW
Part of the problem for the meager settlements awarded to the victims stemmed from the Kansas Wrongful Death Statute in 1965 (K.S.A. 60-1902 and 60-1905). In an article entitled “A Commentary on the Kansas Wrongful Death Act,” published by the University of Kansas Law Review that same year, author Robert C. Casad wrote the following:
Kansas has a wrongful death act, but it is only effective up to the specified monetary maximum. In so far as damages in excess of $25,000 are concerned, it is as though Kansas had no statute. For that excess, it would seem not inappropriate to borrow the view of the states that have no wrongful death act and allow recovery for loss of future earnings.361
Exacerbating the troubles for the victims on Piatt, the Military Claims Act, Section 2733, Title 10, United States Code, also placed a cap on the amount victims could receive. A letter written by air force Colonel Dwight W. Covell in response to an inquiry about the payment of damages caused by the KC-135 crash explained, “[T]he maximum amount which can be paid administratively by the air force is $5,000 and any award in excess of that amount must be reported to Congress for consideration.”362 Based on both laws, a hefty settlement on behalf of the victims was, therefore, highly unlikely, leaving only two avenues available to obtain relief: one, file a lawsuit under the Federal Torts Claim Act against the air force and Boeing; or two, wait for relief by settlement of the claims from the secretary of the air force.
Outraged by the proposed settlements and desiring to expedite the process, a congressman for the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas introduced a bill to remove the limit on claims the government could pay to the Piatt Street victims. Congressman Garner E. Shriver, a Republican, World War II veteran and graduate of Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas, found both the lapse in processing the victims’ claims and the paltry amounts deplorable.363 “I felt it was time I made a personal inquiry for the processing of claims,” he wrote to a friend in August 1965. “[A]s a duly elected representative of the people I have a responsibility to make inquiries in a calm and collected manner.”364
Previous military plane crashes occurring in 1960 in Little Rock, Arkansas, and another the following year in Midwest City, Oklahoma, set the precedent for Shriver to do something about the limitations placed on the settlements.365 With the support of Secretary of the Air Force Eugene M. Zuckert and many other constituents, on February 8, 1965, Shriver introduced H.R. 4546 in order to remove the meager $5,000 limit for administrative claims.366 President Lyndon B. Johnson later approved the bill on July 7.
A matter of speculation, however, surrounded the majority of administrative claims that were dismissed and then refiled as lawsuits following the passage of Shriver’s Bill. Guy L. Goodwin, assistant U.S. attorney, felt the path to litigation taken by the victims was chosen in part to increase the amount of money the attorneys could receive. After all, Shriver’s Bill limited attorney fees to 10 percent:
No part of the amounts awarded under this act in excess of 10 per centum thereof shall be paid of delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with these claims.367
But the Federal Tort Claims Act, on the other hand, allowed attorneys to receive 20 percent. With most of the lawsuits being filed after Shriver’s legislation, not before, it gave the appearance that the attorneys would have, to some degree, encouraged their clients to pursue adversary litigation rather than settling for only 10 percent of the fees they were limited to under Shriver’s Bill. In an unpublished letter written by Goodwin, he stated that it was “unusual that Mr. Lewis [who handled a third of the victim’s claims]…would abandon administrative claims on behalf of his clients before they had been acted upon, in favor of lengthy litigation.”368
Chester I. Lewis, however, asserted that he filed the suits because of the lack of response he received from the air force regarding the claims. He also expressed the desire to obtain the accident report in order to find out why the plane crashed and to assign liability. Wichita attorney Dale W. Bruce agreed, in part, with Lewis. In a letter dated two years later, April 21, 1967, to Congressman Shriver, Bruce stated:
We were informed that the lawsuits were filed because the claimants who had sued were fearful that if they sued within two years they would have no basis for recovery except by decision of the Secretary of the Air Force and that there would be no appeal from a negative decision by him…Now that the two year statute of limitations has passed, the pending lawsuits are the only way of recovery for those who have sued apparently.369
Whatever the reason, it would take years before the victims on Piatt finally received restitution.
THE DELAY
“There is a lot of talk in sections of town,” said Cornelius P. Cotter, a WSU professor, in a letter to Shriver, “…about the delay in the handling of the KC-135 damage suits, chicanery on the part of the air force, or delay in the handling of administrative claims against them, and so on.”370 Part of the blame for the postponement was the two-year statute of limitations that had to expire before the cases could be consolidated and set for trial.371 The decision agreed upon by the victims’ attorneys to forego the administrative claim process and take the matter to trial, moreover, caused further delays.
Additionally, the plaintiffs, in a search to prove the air force’s negligence, petitioned the government to provide data on every KC-135 crash that had occurred since its introduction into the air force. Judge Brown briefly halted the lawsuits in 1967, or
dering the government to produce all the data on KC-135 accidents for only the past three years. Brown claimed that the limited search of three years was more appropriate since the earlier KC-135 models had been extensively modified.372 Thus, with the many obstacles and lapses occurring for various reasons since the first suit was filed in March 1965, an expedited settlement of the cases did not take place.
In the meantime, whether because of the encouragement of their attorneys, distrust of the government or fear that it somehow constituted a final settlement or loan, many of the victims did not take the emergency relief money provided by the air force. As a result, many went into debt trying to repair homes and pay hospital bills. “I heard shortly after the crash that the U.S. Air Force was offering loans of up to $1,000 to help,” said survivor Clarence Walker. “I didn’t want to borrow any money so I didn’t inquire further.”373
THE FAIR-MARK COMMITTEE
In 1967, after a lapse of two years, several members of the Wichita community took action. The Fair-Mark Committee (composed of church members from the Fairmount United Church of Christ and the St. Mark United Methodist Church) was formed to address what it saw as “the injustice of the treatment of Negro and poor white people by political, social, and economic forces that are predominantly white controlled.”374 Consequently, after hearing the dissatisfaction among survivors, the committee sought means for a “speedy” and “adequate” way for the victims to receive their settlements. It started by surveying 137 individual and family contacts affected by the crash, and then it compiled a thirteen-page report on its findings. Report in hand, it inquired of Congressman Shriver whether the secretary of the air force could settle claims quicker than litigation in court.
In a letter to Shriver, the committee asked, “Why has not or why cannot the secretary of the air force settle all of these claims without the trouble and expense and delay of all these lawsuits?”375 Their inquiry led to several correspondences from Shriver’s office to the secretary of the air force questioning the status of the claims. Although Shriver initially began his inquiry into the matter in 1965, H.R. 4546 allowed the air force to “report to Congress within 30 months after the enactment of this act” on claims submitted and settled under the bill.376 When the time expired, Shriver was eventually provided a summary report on the claims from the air force on April 20, 1967, detailing what had been settled up until that point. The summary, however, provided little satisfaction to Shriver or the committee that the job was getting done. It would take another year of petitions, letters back and forth and time in court before the claims were finally settled.
16
FINAL SETTLEMENTS
Laymen know and lawyers will admit that such delay effectively bullies injured parties and their families to settle too soon and for too little.
—Fair-Mark Committee, 1967377
Despite the lengthy process, the victims eventually received their settlements, though most were clearly disappointed. Cora Belle Williams of 2048 North Piatt, who was thrown across her living room by the impact of the crash, filed the largest suit for $235,000. Her claim was settled for $27,500 minus $5,500 for attorney fees.378 George Meyers and his wife, Palestine, spent fifty-eight days in the hospital, suffering from burns after barely escaping their home with their two daughters: three-year-old Debbie and seven-month-old Donna. They became even more depressed, however, when they attempted to claim the full $1,000 in temporary relief allocated to them by the air force and received only $250 instead. Their attorney, G. Edmond Hayes, later filed an optimistic $132,000 lawsuit for damages. Three years later, they settled for $45,000, one of the largest settlements.379
Others, too, received less and lost much as a result of the crash. The amounts paid out showed little homogeneity. They were imbalanced and, as some felt, illogical. The largest amount awarded for a single death was $14,000.380 The smallest relief granted for the death of a child was $400 and for the death of an adult, $701.33.381 The loss of one’s home or property, in most cases, paid more than the loss of a loved one.
Two adults and three children burned to death inside of 2053 North Piatt: Albert L. Bolden (twenty-two); his wife, Wilma J. Bolden (twenty-four); Denise M. Jackson (six); Brenda J. Dunn (five); and Leslie I. Bolden (nine months). The final settlement for the loss of the Bolden family was $28,059. Their attorney fees were $5,611.382
Harvey Dale lost his wife, their newly adopted two-year-old daughter and his home. He sued for $67,000, ending up with only $36,840.38—a ratio of fifty-five cents on the dollar.383
Laura Lee Randoph, Earl S. Randolph and Ethel McCormick handled the estate for Tracy Rachelle Randolph (five) and Mary Daniels (fifty-six), receiving a total of $18,175 for loss of their lives, property damage and funeral expenses. Attorney fees were $3,800.384
Six people died inside of 2041 North Piatt: Emmit Warmsley Sr. (thirty-seven), Laverne Warmsley (twenty-five and with child), Emmit Warmsley Jr. (twelve), Julia A. Maloy (eight) and Julius R. Maloy (six). A total of $28,557 was awarded for their deaths. This sum also included property damage and funeral expenses. Their attorney fees were $5,961.385
Henderson Kye, after losing his wife, Ella, when she suffered a stroke from the trauma of the crash, filed a claim for $25,215.40. Instead, he was given $2,500 for the death of his wife. His attorney fees were $500.386
Alvin T. Allen and his family received $8,000 for personal injuries and property damage. Their attorney fees were $3,300.387
Out of the thirty personal and property damage suits filed against the U.S. government and Boeing, Maxine C. Straughter received the lowest settlement of $100 in a suit originally asking for $2,500 in property damage. Her attorney fee was $20.
Margaret Daniels received $19,516.21 for the loss of her husband, Claude L. Daniels (thirty-two). Twenty-two-year-old James L. Glover, fast asleep when the KC-135 crashed and poured fiery jet fuel into his bedroom, probably never even woke up. His parents, James and Maxine Glover, residing in Detroit, Michigan, were awarded $14,985.53 for his death and other damages.388
Joe T. Martin, after suffering in agony while watching his two sons burn to death in their front yard at 2031 North Piatt, would find no comfort in his settlement. Although they filed a suit for $87,483, Joe and his wife, Lucile Martin, were given only $36,000 for the loss of their home and sons, Joe T. Martin Jr. (twenty-five) and Gary L. Martin (seventeen).389 Joe was laid off from Boeing a short time later and was unable to “face the music,” as he put it. The Martins eventually moved back to Boonsville, Arkansas, where they buried their sons.390
“Every time they burn down a shack in Vietnam they pay for it,” said Clarence Walker. “I’m supposedly an American citizen, but they’ve made no restitution about my house.”391 Clarence and his wife, Irene, leapt from their burning home through a bathroom window and a back door—escaping death but sustaining multiple injuries in the process. They received $25,000 for personal injuries and property damage; $5,000 went to their attorney.392 “My sores have healed, but I don’t know when my soul will,” lamented Mrs. Walker after the settlement.393
At last, on January 11, 1968, Congressman Shriver received a phone call from an air force colonel who conveyed the final settlement of the claims.394 The thirty main lawsuits filed against the air force, seeking just over $1 million in relief and spanning over three and a half years, ended with the government paying $413,250 for loss of life, property damage, funeral costs, injuries and medical bills for all. There were also another 125 Wichitans who filed damage claims against the government outside of court that were settled for $212,000.395 A claim of $14,138.83 by the Gas Service Company for damage to “gas meters, regulators and reimbursement for repair costs, labor and materials,” and one of $12,936.04 by the City of Wichita for property damage, equipment, salaries and material were included in the final numbers.396
An alarming twenty-five out of the twenty-seven claims against Boeing, the codefendant with the U.S. government, were dismissed in 1968—with neither the U.S. government no
r Boeing ever taking responsibility.397 As was noted in the Wichita Eagle, “The government agreed to the settlements without admitting liability or fault in any of the cases.”398 Fault or no fault, these were considered final settlements, leaving no avenues for future lawsuits stemming from the crash.
In the end, several claimed the air force should have settled the claims quickly and for their maximum amount; a few claimed the air force deliberately delayed the process in order to decrease the amounts or to sidestep paying the settlements altogether; others claimed it was the court system that was at fault; some claimed that, if it were not for the courts, nothing would have been settled; many claimed the process might have gone quicker if the greedy lawyers had not wanted a larger percentage; and most were just plain angry. They didn’t know who to blame, but no matter their opinions, one truth remained: all were dissatisfied. “No crash need leave the wake of dissatisfaction and the protracted disruption of lives,” wrote Cornelius P. Cotter, “that has characterized the federal government’s response to that which occurred in Wichita, January 16, 1965.”399 The final settlements were at best pyrrhic victories. Nobody won.
FAMILIES OF THE AIRMEN
Four widows, ten children and countless friends and family of the airmen would never see their loved ones return home that Saturday. And whereas the victims on Piatt Street would at least receive some relief, although not much, the same was not true for the families of the servicemen killed. On the morning of Sunday, January 17, 1965, Jeanine Eileen Widseth heard a knock on her front door at base housing located on Clinton-Sherman AFB. Grieving from the loss of her husband barely twenty-four hours before, she reluctantly answered. Standing before her was an air force colonel in his dress blues—pressed, polished and adorned with medals. He had visited her the previous day, accompanied by a doctor and chaplain, when they broke the heart-wrenching news of her husband, copilot Gary J. Widseth’s death. Now, the colonel had even more tormenting news for Jeanine that she would never forget.