Aviation Law

In a recent case, U.S. Aviation Underwriters Inc. v. Nabtesco Corp., --- F. 3d ---, 2012 WL 4497342, *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994's ("GARA") eighteen year statute of repose begins to run when an aircraft component is delivered to the original purchaser of an aircraft, regardless of whether the component is subsequently installed in a different aircraft. This case is significant because component parts in one aircraft are often removed and installed in a different aircraft. The court found that the statute is not perfectly clear on this point—arguably, the statute of repose could reset if a used component part is removed from one aircraft and placed into another. However, the Ninth Circuit, relying on both the language in the statute and legislative history, found that the statute of repose for a used component part begins to run on the delivery date of that component part to its first purchaser.

On December 7, 2011, the French high court, the Cour de Cassation, ruled that a United States District Court could not use the doctrine of forum non conveniens under Article 33 of the 1999 Montreal Convention (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999) to dismiss and "transfer" to Martinique - a French possession in the Caribbean - suits brought in the United States by the 152 victims of the crash of a Colombian air carrier over Venezuelan territory. The French court ruled that the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, has the choice of deciding which jurisdiction will decide the dispute without the possibility that an internal rule of procedure of another state (in this instance the United States) might contradict his choice.

If a plane crashes into the ocean, and no one witnesses the event, does it make a splash? In our modern era of aviation, numerous flights are made across the navigable waters surrounding the United States. On a daily basis you can find helicopters transporting workers to the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, amateur pilots flying their planes on scenic tours of the Caribbean, or tourists and businessmen traveling on the early flight to London. While most of these flights will occur without incident, a few each year will inevitably end in disaster. This article will give a brief overview of the Death on the High Seas Act and its importance to an aviation attorney when a plane goes splash.

On June 23, 2011, a jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a verdict in favor of Independence Air and against a passenger with a disability who fell down the stairway of a commuter jet when deplaning at the Philadelphia Airport.[1]   The case involved the standard of care under state negligence law as to the type of assistance an airline is required to provide to passengers with disabilities and to what extent the directives embodied within the Air Carriers Access Act ("ACAA") could impact that standard of care.[2]

On June 23, 2011, a jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a verdict in favor of Independence Air and against a passenger with a disability who fell down the stairway of a commuter jet when deplaning at the Philadelphia Airport.[1]   The case involved the standard of care under state negligence law as to the type of assistance an airline is required to provide to passengers with disabilities and to what extent the directives embodied within the Air Carriers Access Act ("ACAA") could impact that standard of care.[2]

When a lawyer commits malpractice, the injured party sues the lawyer.  When a doctor commits malpractice, the injured party sues the doctor.  But what if a law school or a medical school commits malpractice in training one of its students?  Can it be sued for malpractice?  In the vast majority of jurisdictions, the answer is "no," but there are narrow exceptions and notable distinctions to this rule.

In this article we will discuss both the general rule of and the narrow exceptions to what we hereinafter refer to as "the educational malpractice doctrine."

The year was 1988 and the United States Supreme Court in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), established the law that civil/private contractors who manufacture equipment for the military/government are immune from state law claims for injury or damage arising out of a defect in the equipment.  Since the 1988 decision in Boyle, this "military contractor defense" has become a widely known and applied defense utilized by private/civil equipment manufacturers to avoid liability for injury or damage caused by defects in their products provided to the military/government.  At least one court in almost every Federal Circuit has recognized the defense established in Boyle.[i]  The Boyle court set forth the three-part immunity test as follows: