[ocdscale]

[ QUOTE ]
how big of a difference is it if it were two police helicopters that crashed into each other, as opposed to two news helicopters?

also, is there any liability on the estate of Pilot A for the death of journalist A?

[/ QUOTE ]

People v. Acosta involved two police helicopters. Court found it was foreseeable but remanded to a lower court to decide the issue of malice (general feeling was that he would get involuntary manslaughter).
The reason the collision between two police helicopters is causally connected to a fleeing criminal, but collision between two news helicopters may not be, is because police have a duty to pursue fleeing criminals.
Essentially, the fleeing criminal is 'forcing' the police to follow, but the news cameramen are making a conscious decision whether or not to pursue.
If two police cars crashed, it would be pretty lock + shut. The only reason why helicopter crashes raise a question is because they are out of the ordinary and perhaps not foreseeable by the criminal (Acosta court says it is foreseeable, however).

Given the facts, neither pilot has any criminal liability for the death of the journalists in either helicopter. There may be civil liability under negligence depending on the reason for the crash.

Note: I am certainly not a lawyer, and criminal laws differ in every state, so don't start high speed chases on my account.

edit: I don't think felony murder doctrine applies because it also requires causation (Which I think is the main issue holding back liability for the collision between news helicopters, intervening human actors are a superseding cause).