Product Liability and Aviation Accidents

Pilot error usually plays some part in general aviation accidents. But mechanical problems can also be involved, despite aviation manufacturer warranties and disclaimers. 

If so, the manufacturer of the aircraft may have responsibility for any issues caused by the airplane crash, such as:

• Wrongful deaths
• Property damage
• Injuries (including emotional distress)

If something went wrong with the airplane or parts, you may have a product liability claim. These travel injury cases can be complicated, so you can get more information from a personal injury lawyer. 

Can I Sue an Aviation Manufacturer?

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA) protects manufacturers to some extent. However, it only limits liability for small aircraft and aircraft parts in accidents involving parts that are 18 years or older.

But in many aviation tragedies, the cause of the accident is related to bigger airplanes run by commercial airlines. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) compiles audio from air traffic controllers. Often, these recordings involve very large airplanes.

Therefore, strict liability law remains a powerful force that holds the aviation industry responsible for safety. An injured flight passenger may sue under this legal theory.

What Is Strict Liability?

Manufacturer liability may be proven under a legal theory of strict liability. A strict liability tort is a wrongful civil act that does not require a defendant’s negligence or intent to harm. This means it is irrelevant whether or not the airplane accident or the cause of the crash was the result of a breach of a duty of care.

In aviation law, this legal doctrine makes it easier to sue manufacturers in product defect cases. Strict liability works by switching the focus to the product’s safety rather than the conduct of the person using the product. Manufacturers in a high-risk industry must adhere to heightened rules. They must design, manufacture, and warn in accordance with the foreseeable risks of product use.

Proving Airplane Manufacturer Liability

A strict liability claim against a manufacturer has a lower threshold of proof than cases against an airplane pilot or carrier. It does not require proof that negligence caused the accident. In almost all states, a victim can hold a manufacturer or seller “strictly liable” if it is shown that a defect in the product was a cause of the injuries.

Aviation product liability law varies from state to state. In several states, including California, a manufacturer may be strictly liable if:

• The defective product is unreasonably dangerous
• The product is for use by an ordinary consumer

Most states use a slightly different rule called a “risk-benefit analysis.” In those states, a manufacturer may be held strictly liable if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. Still, the consumer must have used the product in a foreseeable manner. The risk-benefit analysis test asks if the risk associated with the product’s design outweighs the design’s benefits.

In an aviation strict liability claim, a jury will decide whether an alternative design exists. The alternative design of the product must be mechanically feasible. Juries decide if the manufacturer could have implemented the alternative design at the time of sale. A manufacturer may escape liability if an alternative design is too “state of the art” to have been tested for viability.

Three Types of Strict Product Liability Claims

States vary in their interpretation of strict liability elements. Usually, to establish strict liability in a product liability lawsuit, the injured person (the plaintiff) must show that:

• The product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s or distributor’s (the defendant’s) control
• The product was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner
• The product caused the plaintiff’s injury

Strict liability can arise due to a defect in design or manufacture or a failure to warn.

Design Defect

A design defect is when a whole product line or every product from a particular model is dangerously deficient. This is where courts apply the “unreasonably dangerous” test. They may also use a combination of consumer expectations and a risk-benefit test to determine if the design is defective.

Manufacturing Defect

A manufacturing defect may exist if the manufacturer fails to produce the product correctly. If the finished product is substandard compared to identical products in that product line, there’s a problem. The manufacturer may be liable for causing the anomaly and failing to catch the defect before the product was sold to a consumer. Manufacturing defects include the use of inferior materials or faulty assembly.

Failure To Warn

If manufacturers fail to provide adequate warnings or instructions for use, they can be held strictly liable for failure to warn. There are two types of warnings:

• General instructions accompanying the product: The instructions are a part of the product. If the instructions are ambiguous or insufficient, the product cannot be used safely. Examples include operating limits and weight limits.

• Specific warnings of a danger: These apply to dangers a manufacturer knew or should have known about at the time of sale or dangers discovered after sale. For instance, specific warnings might be given through cockpit placards or equipment labels.

What Is a Counterfeit Part?

Counterfeit airplane parts may be look-alikes made from inferior quality materials. Or they could be repurposed parts from other planes sold as if they were new. They may put lives at risk, as is the case with airplane crashes.

Counterfeit airplane parts may be nearly impossible to distinguish from non-counterfeit parts. Not surprisingly, the failure rates for counterfeit goods can be many times higher than the bona fide parts they mimic.

For example, semiconductors used in electronics parts are normally manufactured in a clean room environment. Even tiny dust particles can negatively impact the reliability of the device. A counterfeit semiconductor may be produced in less than sterile conditions. The resulting products may look almost identical, but the counterfeit has a much greater risk of failure. This is due to the lack of quality control of the fake parts manufacturer.

Who Checks Whether Airplane Parts Are Counterfeit?

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the U.S. Department of Transportation conduct aerospace investigations in part to discover unapproved aircraft parts.

Airlines have been hesitant to investigate whether parts are counterfeit or not. When counterfeits are suspected or discovered, airline officials may choose not to undertake the expense and difficulty of replacing them.

As a result, much of the information we have about counterfeit airplane parts results from criminal investigations into counterfeits sold to the U.S. military. The FBI or an inspector general may conduct these investigations.

These investigations suggest that suspected unapproved parts (SUPs) not only pose major safety risks, but also expose airlines and commercial aircraft manufacturers to products liability claims arising from:

• Plane crashes
• Aircraft accidents
• Other fatalities that undermine aviation safety

Filing a Claim for a Defective Part Aviation Accident

If a part-related issue contributed to your injuries, you may file a product liability claim. To do so, you will need to know about the time limits and the general legal process of a product injury claim.

Statutes of Repose

A statute of repose is a law that requires a product liability suit to be brought before the expiration of the law’s deadline. However, unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose is concerned with specific event dates, such as the date of part manufacture. It is also not dependent on the date of a plaintiff’s injury.

The General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) is the federal statute of repose relating to general aviation aircraft crash liability arising from defective parts. There is a limit to aircraft having a seating capacity of 20 passengers or fewer. GARA requires plaintiffs to file suits of this kind within 18 years of the product’s manufacture.

The GARA statute of repose preempts any state laws that provide a longer period of time to file a suit. GARA covers most accidents that occur in the United States. But courts have been split regarding whether it also covers accidents that occur in foreign jurisdictions. GARA’s requirements also apply to foreign aircraft that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has certified.

Exceptions to the Statute of Repose

There are some exceptions to the 18-year limitation set by GARA’s statute of repose.

The statute does not apply if the manufacturer:

• Concealed a defect
• Withheld information
• Made a knowing misrepresentation to the FAA regarding the product and the plane’s airworthiness

This can be difficult to prove. Plaintiffs will need to show the manufacturer’s knowledge as well as their concealment, withholding of information, or misrepresentation to the FAA. This misrepresentation should be of a material and relevant fact that resulted in the eventual accident.

Looking at Your Legal Options? Contact an Attorney First

Aviation claims against airplane manufacturers involve a detailed understanding of aviation. One must understand FAA rules and regulations and the specific laws related to aviation. Also, these suits are often class actions, meaning they involve similar claims brought on behalf of many plaintiffs.

If you or your family members suffered injury or the death of a loved one due to an aviation accident, you have legal rights. You’ll benefit from the expertise of an experienced personal injury attorney. They can advise you on legal issues and injury claims in commercial airline product liability cases.