Manufacturers have long complained of the "product liability crisis" and the attendant cost of liability insurance that have made it economically unfeasible to continue production of general aviation aircraft.
The GARA limits to 18 years, the time in which a lawsuit arising from an incident involving a general aviation aircraft can be brought against a manufacturer. The GARA also:
Covers state personal injury, wrongful death, property damage lawsuits.
Bars claims against manufacturer of aircraft or new component parts.
In the case of any new component part, the limitation period begins on the date when the new component part was installed.
Covered. Any aircraft for which an airworthiness certificate has been issued by the FAA and which had, at the time the certificate was issued, a maximum seating capacity of fewer than twenty passengers.
Excluded. Any aircraft engaged in scheduled passenger-carry operations, as defined by the Federal Aviation Act are not covered by the Act.
The Act does not apply if a claimant specifically pleads, and eventually proves, that the aircraft or component part manufacturer knowingly misrepresented, concealed, or withheld from the FAA relevant performance, maintenance, or operational information in applying for an airworthiness certificate.
Rickert v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., No. 95 - CV-72 B (D.Wyo. June 19, 1996). The court originally granted Mitusbishi's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff, whose plane had crashed, could not sue the manufacturer and avoid GARA's period of repose simply by dressing up evidence as misrepresentations and concealments. The court held that GARA required more than innuendo and inference. Rather, GARA demanded specificity.
The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing which the court accepted, that the manufacturers had stone-walled discovery and permitted the parties to resubmit their summary judgment motions after further discovery.
The plaintiff produced two affidavits from former manufacturer employees, a former director of flight operations and a former international vice-president. Both witnesses calined that the manufacturer had withheld information from the FAA on icing problems. The court ruled that these statements satisfied GARA's requirement that a plaintiff produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact cncerning a known misrepresentation or concealment. the case was set for trial.
The Act does not apply to claims for death or injury by a person not on board the aircraft at the time of the accident.
The Act does not apply to an action brought under a written warranty which, but for the Act, would have been enforceable.
The Act applies only to actions against manufacturers of aircraft or component parts, in their capacities as manufacturers. State product liability laws impose strict liability upon manufacturers in their capacities as "sellers."
Also, the Act does not protect sellers other than manufacturers and does not address whether contribution or indemnification actions by non-manufacturer sellers would be subject to the statute of repose.
One of the common law defenses recognized by the Supreme Court in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), is the manufacturers of military products defense.
Manufacturers of military products are shielded from tort liability for product design if:
the United States approved reasonably precise design specifications;
the equipment conformed to those specifications; and
the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States.
Summary judgments have been successful for defendant manufacturers in both federal and state court. Dean v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 1994 WL6045 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 1994); Miller v. United Technologies, 1993 WL 280191 (Conn. Super.Ct. July 16, 1993)
In Augustine et al., v. Bell helicopter Textron, No. 2-95-165 CV(TX App. Ct. 2d dist. June 6, 1996) the court ruled that U.S. Air Force acceptance of an allegedly defective helicopter part det design does not qualify as the "approval" required by the Boyle test.
The plaintiffs argued that before the manufacturer could assert the defense, it must first satisfy the court on (1) whether the governmentexercised discretion in accepting a safety risk, and (2)whether a significant conflict existed between the requirements of the manufacturer's helicopter contract with the Air Force and safety requiements imposed by Texas state Law.
The Texas Supreme Court agreed that both issues were relevant, but held that they were not theshold elements that a government cntractor must prove to assert the defense. The court stated that proof of contract-state law conflict and the the government's exercised discretionin choosing apart's design is part of the Boyle test, not a prerequisite to it. The Court then held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Air Force approved reasonabley precise specifications of the allegedly defective component, and the matter should be resolved by trial.
In Miller, the court found the Boyle test was met because General Dynamics and the Air Force developed reasonably precise specifications which were incorporated into a design subsequently reviewed and approved by the government. The court found the defense was still valid even though the government later directed Chandler-Evans to develop a new pump in an effort to cure the cavitation problem, ruling that "the contractor is not deprived of the defense for a government approved product because it worked with the government to develop an improved product."
Doctrine defined: The "economic loss" doctrine generally limits the purchaser of a product to contract remedies in cases where the incident resulted only in damage to the product itself. The doctrine bars tort remedies and damages such as consequential damages and business losses.
Direct and consequential damages ruled out on summary judgment in helicopter accident. Bocre Leasing Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 840 F. Supp. 231 (E.D.N.Y 1994)
Doctrine applies even in absence of privity. In Bocre, the court held that a buyer in an arms length commercial transaction could not recover in tort under either strict products liability or negligence theory for damage caused by a defect in the product where only the product itself was damaged.
The doctrine continues to receive support from the courts in accidents involving aircraft. Midwest Helicopter Airways v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 849 F. Supp. 666 (E.D. Wis. 1994), aff'd, 42 F.3d 1391 (7th Cir. 1994); Rocky Mountain Helicopters v. Bell Helicopter, 24 F.3d 125 (10th Cir. 1994).
| Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page |