AOPA Asks Supreme Court to Review Sikkelee Decision; Urges FAA Preemption

by Cozen O'Connor
Contact

Cozen O'Connor

In a notable amicus curiae brief, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit), which allowed states to apply state standards of care to the field of aviation product liability. AOPA pressed the Supreme Court to hear the case, and conclude that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — not states — has exclusive authority to regulate safety standards in aviation manufacturing and product liability. In doing so, AOPA aligned itself with aviation manufacturers. As an organization directed at pilot membership, the alignment is somewhat counterintuitive. The FAA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) have already filed similar amicus curiae briefs. The odds of success, however, are low. The Supreme Court grants approximately 1 percent of all certiorari petitions, but AOPA’s support for the manufacturers may increase the prospects for Supreme Court review.

In Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., the Third Circuit held that state design standards may be used to determine aviation product liability regardless of the FAA’s approval and certification or the manufacturers’ compliance with FAA regulations.

The underlying case arose from a Cessna 172N crash in 2005. Pilot David Sikkelee perished when the aircraft encountered an error shortly after take-off. At some point before the crash, the FAA had issued a type certificate to the Cessna manufacturer for a new engine design. In accordance with the FAA type certificate, the manufacturer overhauled the engines in 2004. The overhaul included a new carburetor. The plaintiff, the spouse of the deceased, filed suit in Pennsylvania state court against 17 defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that a “malfunction or defect” in the Lycoming O-320-D2C engine’s carburetor resulted in the aircraft losing power, ultimately causing the fatality. The complaint included claims that incorporated state law standards of care, including strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation. No federal claims were alleged. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

In 2010, the District Court dismissed the case, holding that the FAA preempted state law claims in the field of “air safety.” The District Court relied on the seminal decision in Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., which involved in-flight seatbelt use and warnings. The Abdullah court held that state law claims were preempted because the FAA and federal regulations “establish[ed] complete and thorough safety standards for interstate and international air transportation and these standards are not subject to supplementation by, or variation among, jurisdictions.” The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint that incorporated federal standards of care along with state law claims. The federal standards of care derived from FAA regulations. In 2014, the District Court rejected the state law design claims, finding that the FAA-issued type certificate defined the standard of care. The District Court reasoned that there could be no design defect in the engine because it had been certified and approved by the FAA. The case was certified for immediate appeal.

In April 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. It held that the FAA’s federal regulatory role did not preempt state law standards of care in aviation products liability claims. The Court of Appeals also held that the type certificate for the engine did not preclude design defect claims.

The decision would result in an increase in claims and judgments against aviation manufacturers brought by pilots and passengers. Juries could also hold pilots to different standards of care in state law claims. Most problematically, those in the field of aviation manufacturing could be in the impossible position of complying with 50 different sets of state laws while simultaneously complying with the FAA. Though AOPA’s interpretation of the law necessarily precludes these possibilities, AOPA argues that its position aligns with pilot interests as well as manufacturer interests. AOPA counsel wrote:

As owners and pilots, AOPA members have a substantial interest in the duties imposed upon manufacturers to address unsafe conditions in FAA-approved designs. These duties significantly affect the safety of existing aircraft and future aircraft produced in accordance with that design. Additionally, the cumulative cost effect of aviation products liability actions on manufacturers is also passed onto aircraft owners. Thus, state-law duties defined in an aviation products liability action affect the cost of purchasing new and maintaining existing aircraft.

AOPA argued that Congress intended to create a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation in the field of air safety in enacting the FAA. The Third Circuit decision, according to AOPA, would “result in the imposition of state-law duties which interfere and conflict with federal control of aviation products and continued operational safety.” AOPA went on to argue that “[m]anufacturer compliance with these variable state-law duties is practically impossible because the federal regulatory scheme requires approval from the FAA to change an approved aircraft design.”

According to AOPA Counsel Ken Mead, “It’s vitally important that manufacturers have one set of standards, established by the FAA, to adhere to,” said Mead. “Otherwise they can face the nearly impossible and very costly challenge of trying to follow a hodgepodge of potentially contradictory state standards. That’s bad for safety, it’s bad for manufacturers, and it’s bad for aircraft owners who end up, quite literally, paying the price.”

Supreme Court observers rarely predict with certainty when the Court will grant a petition. Still, given the circuit split, the potential widespread impact, the parties involved, and the amicus curiae briefs filed, the prospects for review of the Sikkelee case seems to have increased. The future of aviation product liability surely depends on what the Supreme Court will do next.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cozen O'Connor | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cozen O'Connor
Contact
more
less

Cozen O'Connor on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.