On July 26, 2006, plaintiff’s decedent Ihsan Ozer, 39, a worker for (or with) one of Fluor Intercontinental Inc.’s subcontractors, was a passenger aboard one of Tryco’s Soviet-built Mi-8 transport helicopters that was flying from Kabul to Khost in Afghanistan, pursuant to a contract with Fluor. In 2006, Fluor was under contract to oversee the construction of a regional brigade facility near Khost for the emerging Afghan National Army, which was founded by President Hamid Karzai in 2002. The facility’s construction necessitated the transport of personnel and light materiel, particularly within Afghanistan, between Kabul and Khost. In order to provide a safer alternative to vehicular convoys that had to pass through treacherous, IED-littered mountains, where kidnappings and ambushes were not uncommon, Fluor had Kabul-based helicopter operator Tryco, acting as an independent contractor, supply some of its aerial transport needs and its subcontractors. Thus, as the helicopter Ozer was in was flying over a relatively remote, war-torn area, not far from the construction site, the helicopter, owned, operated, piloted and maintained by Tryco, impacted the mountainous terrain. Everyone aboard perished. The decedent’s wife, Selma Ozer, acting individually and as the representative of their two children, sued various Tryco entities, including Tryco International Inc., Tryco Inc., and Franz Zenz, doing business as those entities; and various Fluor entities, including Fluor Intercontinental Inc., Fluor Corp., and Fluor International Inc. The court ultimately found that the decedent’s family could not assert personal jurisdiction over the Tryco entities in a California court. While that ruling was being appealed, the matter proceeded to a bench trial against the Fluor defendants only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the Fluor entities were imprudent in making the decision to hire Tryco and in continuing to utilize the contractor for its transport needs. Counsel also contended that Tryco’s flights were unsafe, that Fluor knew or should have known of the danger, and that Fluor was negligent in the hiring of Tryco as an independent contractor. Plaintiffs’ counsel primarily argued that the likely cause of the accident was weather-related pilot error. More specifically, counsel reckoned the helicopter entered instrument meteorological conditions when neither the helicopter nor the pilots were equipped to fly in those conditions. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that once the helicopter entered instrument meteorological conditions, it flew into the side of a mountain. Fluor’s counsel argued that in order for the Fluor entities to be held liable for hiring the independent contractor that operated the accident flight, plaintiffs’ counsel first had to prove that the independent contractor was negligent and that the contractor’s negligence was a legal cause of the accident. However, Fluor’s counsel contended that there was no credible, admissible evidence to show what caused the helicopter to impact the mountain. Counsel established there was simply no evidence of the alleged weather conditions at the time and place plaintiffs’ counsel claimed the helicopter had entered instrument meteorological conditions, making it impossible for plaintiffs’ counsel to prove the theory of weather-related pilot error. Moreover, Fluor’s counsel contended that plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to prove his liability theory since there was virtually no evidence about the pilots or the specific equipment on the accident helicopter when it impacted the mountain., Ihsan Ozer died in the helicopter crash. He was 39. The decedent is survived by his 36-year-old wife, their 10-year-old daughter and their 7-year-old son. Thus, the decedent’s wife sought recovery of wrongful death damages.