Claim against helicopter maker not time-barred; Ninth Circuit lets case proceed.

A products liability claim against a helicopter manufacturer may proceed even though the helicopter involved in the crash was made 23 years ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held. (Caldwell v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp., 230 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2000).)

The opinion is an important interpretation of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), which Congress intended as a means of limiting lawsuits against airplane manufacturers. The law precludes actions against makers of general aviation aircraft if the part that allegedly caused a crash is more than 18 years old. In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that the helicopter's revised flight manual, which the plaintiffs asserted was the cause of the crash, was a new part within the meaning of the law.

In 1997, helicopter pilot Brian Caldwell took Seiichi Hanami and another passenger on a sightseeing tour of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands. The craft ran out of usable fuel and crashed, killing Caldwell and severely injuring Hanami. Caldwell's estate and Hanami sued the helicopter manufacturer in federal court. They contended that the helicopter's flight manual was defective because it did not include a warning that the last two gallons of gasoline in the fuel tanks would not burn.

The manufacturer argued that the action was barred by GARA. The plaintiffs responded that their claims fell within the statute's "rolling" provision, which extends the limitations period with respect to "any new component, system, subassembly, or other part" that replaced another part of the craft. But the district court ruled as a matter of law that a revised flight manual is not covered by the rolling provision and dismissed the case.

Reversal

Reversing, the Ninth Circuit said that the lower court had improperly relied on a series of cases holding that statutes of repose, such as GARA, can block lawsuits premised on a failure to warn. The court observed that plaintiffs in this action did not claim a continuing duty to warn by the manufacturer. Instead, they argued that the revised manual itself was the defective product that caused the crash.

The court reasoned that a flight manual must either be a part of the aircraft or a separate product. Given that federal regulations require helicopter makers to include flight manuals with each craft, it is impossible to conclude the manual is a separate product. It is a "part" within the meaning of GARA, the court found.

The flight manual "is not a separate, general instructional guide (like a book on how to ski), but instead is detailed and particular to the aircraft to which it pertains," the court said. "The manual is the `part' of the aircraft that contains the instructions that are necessary to operate the aircraft and is not separate from it."

The court noted that merely cosmetic changes to the manual, such as a new type-face, or revisions that did not affect the systems alleged to have been involved in the crash, would not be sufficient to overcome the 18-year limitations period.

If, however, plaintiffs can show that the manufacturer substantively altered, or deleted entirely, a warning about the fuel system from the manual within the last 18 years, they may proceed with their lawsuit based on a strict liability theory, the court concluded.