Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffliabilityappealtrialcorporationcompliance
plaintiffdefendantliabilitystatutetrial

Related Cases

Wintersteen v. Food Lion, Inc., 344 S.C. 32, 542 S.E.2d 728
View Case »
Pusey v. Bator, 94 Ohio St.3d 275, 762 N.E.2d 968, 2002 -Ohio- 795
View Case »
Collins v. Plant Insulation Co., 185 Cal.App.4th 260, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 241, 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 861, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6933, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8258
View Case »
Maupin v. Tankersley, 540 S.W.3d 357
View Case »
Hilmes v. Stroebel, 59 Wis. 74, 17 N.W. 539
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 282 Or. 61, 577 P.2d 1322, 97 A.L.R.3d 606

Facts

The case involves wrongful-death actions brought by the personal representatives of two passengers who died in a crash of a Piper Cherokee aircraft. The plane took off with a student pilot and a qualified instructor, along with the two passengers, but crashed in the Cascade Mountains after entering a cloud. The plaintiffs alleged that the crash was caused by engine failure due to carburetor icing and that the design of the rear passenger compartment contributed to the deaths of the passengers.

The airplane, a Piper Cherokee manufactured in 1966, took off from the Eugene airport on January 22, 1971, with a licensed student pilot at the controls and a qualified instructor in the copilot's seat.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the aircraft was dangerously defective due to its susceptibility to carburetor icing and whether the design of the rear passenger compartment was adequate.

The assignments of error require us to consider both aspects of the case.

Rule

The court applied the principle that compliance with FAA safety standards does not preclude liability for design defects, and that plaintiffs must show evidence of an alternative, safer design that is practicable under the circumstances.

We have found no support for this position. Neither the applicable statutes themselves, 49 U.S.C. ss 1421(a)(1) and 1423(a) and (c), nor the legislative history (see 1958 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 3741) indicates any Congressional intent to provide that FAA approval of either the general model design or the airworthiness of the particular craft is a complete defense to the claim of civil liability for faulty design.

Analysis

The court found that while there was evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims regarding carburetor icing, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the aircraft was dangerously defective. The court emphasized the need for evidence showing that alternative designs were not only technically feasible but also practicable in terms of cost and overall design. The FAA's approval of the aircraft's design was also considered in determining the adequacy of the design.

Taking into account all of the evidence, including the FAA determination that this aircraft design included adequate protection against carburetor icing, we hold that plaintiffs did not produce sufficient evidence that a reasonably prudent manufacturer who was aware of the risks of carburetor icing would not have designed this model of aircraft with a carbureted engine, or that substitution of a fuel injected engine was practicable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of design defects.

For the reasons given above, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Who won?

Piper Aircraft Corporation prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient to establish that the aircraft was dangerously defective.

Defendant contends first that these allegations, regardless of the state of the evidence, do not present a jury question; and second that the evidence was insufficient to justify submitting them to the jury.

You must be