The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and General Aviation Manufacturers Association are urging the Supreme Court to hear a case that they fear, if left unchallenged, could pave the way for juries to set aircraft design standards at the state level beyond those already established by the FAA.
Both associations filed friends of the courts (amicus curiae) briefs, seeking a review of a product liability case, Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive, involving the July 2005 crash of a Cessna 172N shortly after takeoff from Transylvania County Airport in Brevard, N.C. The pilot, David Sikkelee, was killed in the crash. His wife, Jill Sikkelee, filed a lawsuit claiming that the aircraft lost power and crashed as a result of a malfunction or defect in the Lycoming O-320-D2C engine’s carburetor.
In 2014, a U.S. District Court found in favor of the defendants, determining that the manufacturers involved had satisfied the federal “standards of care” because the engine had been certified and approved by the U.S. FAA. But last April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that finding, determining that the FAA does not preempt state law standards of care in aviation product liability, nor do FAA standards eliminate the possibility of a design defect.
The Appeals Court turned to a federal case, Abdullah v. American Airlines, in which the FAA was found to have jurisdiction in the “field of aviation safety.” But the Appeals Court determined that applied to in-air operational safety issues and “does not include product manufacture and design, which continues to be governed by state tort law.” The court further noted that courts “have consistently applied state law to tort claims arising from airplane crashes.”
This finding, the associations believe, permits juries to hold a manufacturer to state design standards, even if the manufacturer satisfied FAA certification standards.
“If a product is defective, aggrieved parties should receive compensation for injuries resulting from the defect, but standards set by the FAA, not by juries or the states themselves, should be used to determine whether the manufacturer is liable in aviation products liability cases,” said AOPA general counsel Ken Mead. “To do otherwise conflicts with the FAA’s areas of responsibility and threatens the affordability and safety of general aviation.”
In its request for review, GAMA warns, “The court of appeals’ opinion in Sikkelee would impose on the aviation industry fifty state standards, defined by lay juries through the narrow lens of litigation, undermining the FAA’s success and continued efforts at home and abroad, stifling innovation and jeopardizing safety.”
AOPA agreed with that contention in its brief to the court. “This case presents an important question about the states’ role in ensuring continued operational safety of aircraft approved by the FAA,” the association said. “In enacting the Federal Aviation Act, Congress’s intent was to create a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation in the field of air safety and preserve state tort remedies for violations of a federal standard of care. Federal preemption of state design standards is consistent with Congress’s vision for uniformity in air safety standards and necessary for continued operational safety of approved aircraft.”
The association further contended the Appeals Court erred in finding that the field of aviation safety applies only to in-air operations. “The Third Circuit drew an arbitrary and impracticable distinction between in-air operations and non-in-air operations,” AOPA said, adding, “The error in this analysis is that the regulations governing pilot pre-flight duties, pilot flight responsibilities and flight rules are highly dependent upon the design of the aircraft being operated, and part of a uniform system created and controlled by the FAA."
