Supreme Court Rules on Plane Crash Case

The Washington Supreme Court ruled in an aviation case in which seven people died.[1] The personal representative of the decedents’ estates brought wrongful death actions against Twin Commander, the plane manufacturer.[2] An investigation by the Mexican government reached the conclusion that the rudder came loose during flight, causing the accident.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Twin Commander on the grounds of the statute of repose set forth in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA) bars the actions. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Washington Supreme Court held that the statute of repose applies and that the trial court therefore properly dismissed the case.

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of any material fact with the evidence and inferences from the evidence construed in favor of the nonmoving party. GARA is a statute of repose that limits liability to 18 years after an aircraft is delivered. It was undisputed that more than 18 years had elapsed after delivery of the aircraft.

The plaintiff’s relied on the fraud exception in the statute. Under what is known as GARA’s “fraud exception,” the statute of repose does not apply if the manufacturer “knowingly misrepresented to the Federal Aviation Administration, or concealed or withheld from the Federal Aviation Administration, required information.”

The plaintiff contended that Twin Commander failed to disclose rudder information related to (1) a 1970 crash involving a prototype of a predecessor plane; (2) the results of a 1979 flutter test; (3) a 1982 crash in Arkansas in which the airplane’s rudder horn assembly was never found; (4) a 1992 crash in Denver in which tearing of the rudder was observed; (5) four other cases of problems with the rudder cap; (6) a 2002 crash in Texas in which the rudder cap separated from the plane in flight; and (7) a 2003 crash in Georgia in which the rudder cap also separated from the plane during flight.

The Washington Supreme Court noted that there is no dispute that these accidents were reported to the FAA and rejected arguments that subsequent accidents created a duty to reinvestigate and re-report. The Court also noted that emails showed an open and ongoing communication with the FAA concerning the rudder problem.

This is a short summary of a recent court decision and not a substitute for legal advice. This firm took no part in the lawsuit. For advice about injury from aviation accident or other personal injury issues contact an attorney.