Product Liability Articles

Defenses in Aviation Lawsuits Based on Strict Liability

Following an aviation accident, lawsuits are generally filed to recover damages for personal injuries or death. In an aviation lawsuit based on strict liability, a plaintiff does not have to prove negligence by the aircraft manufacturer. The plaintiff must show the product was defective when it was sold, the product was used as intended, and the product caused the injury or death. Aircraft manufacturers have several defenses they can raise in aviation lawsuits based on strict liability. However, building a product in conformity with Federal Aviation Administration regulations is not a complete defense to aviation lawsuits based on strict liability. This is because many of the certification regulations only establish minimum standards.

Assumption of Risk

If a pilot or his/her estate sues an aircraft manufacturer as a result of an aviation accident, the defense of assumption of risk can be claimed. Assumption of risk applies when a person knows that a product is defective but continues to use it. If the defense of assumption of risk is proved, the pilot's recovery is barred or reduced. For example, in a lawsuit by a deceased pilot's wife, the wife's recovery was barred by assumption of risk. The pilot was aware of potential malfunctions that might occur in conducting a particular maneuver, but he performed the maneuver anyway. Any finding of assumption of risk must be based on the individual's voluntary use of the product with knowledge of the specific defect that eventually caused the injury or death.

Misuse of Product

The misuse of a product is generally a defense only if the aircraft manufacturer could have predicted that the product would be misused. If certain types of misuse can be anticipated, manufacturers might have to design their product to protect occupants from severe injury or death. For example, if gear up landings and ground loops are predictable, manufacturers might be held responsible if they do not design their products to protect against such mishaps.

After Market Warnings

Manufacturers have an obligation to warn about dangers in the product that are discovered after it has been sold. Typical warnings include amendments to the operations manual, update kits and service bulletins. A manufacturer will be held strictly liable for after market dangers if its warnings are inadequate.

Modification or Alteration

The modification or alteration of a product can be a defense in air crash litigation. A manufacturer would not be liable if someone altered or modified the product after it was sold, and the alteration or modification caused the accident.

Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

Statutes of limitations are laws that set a time period during which a lawsuit has to be filed. The typical time period for filing products liability lawsuits for personal injuries is one or two years. If a suit is not filed within that time period, the lawsuit will be barred. The General Aviation Revitalization Act (Act), which took effect in 1994, is a federal statute of repose. A statute of repose sets a time period after which the manufacturer of a product cannot be held liable for the product. Under the Act, a manufacturer is not liable for an accident that occurs more than 18 years after the aircraft was delivered to the dealer or purchaser.

Government Contractor Defense

Manufacturers of military aircraft have a special defense called the government contractor defense. A manufacturer of military aircraft will not be held liable for aircraft accidents if: (1) the government approved the specifications for the product design; (2) the product met the specifications; and (3) the manufacturer warned of all known dangers associated with the use of the product. Military service members who are killed or injured in military accidents, along with their families, cannot recover if the government contractor defense is proven.

< Back to Articles

Copyright 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.]