 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mason v. Schweizer Aircraft Corp.11/14/2002
ligations as a manufacturer or holder of the type certificate. The defendant argues in response that GARA protects manufacturers against all failure-to-warn claims, because any duty to warn, regardless of the theory, is a duty imposed on the manufacturer in its capacity as a manufacturer.
We begin our analysis with the observation that the original manufacturer had a legal obligation to provide a "maintenance manual . . . contain information which . . . essential for the proper maintenance of the rotorcraft." Civil Air Regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 6.719 (Rev. 1952 & Supp. 1956). We think it could hardly be disputed that had Hughes Tool, the original manufacturer, provided updated manuals for a fee that it would have been doing so "in its capacity as a manufacturer." See Alter v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 531, 540 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (holding "the manufacturer's provision of maintenance and repair manuals was part of its duty to warn as a manufacturer" (emphasis added)); Burroughs, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 133-34 (holding that "claims based on the alleged failure to deliver adequate warnings of known defects" are claims against the manufacturer "in its capacity as a manufacturer"); Campbell v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202, 210 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding a failure-to-warn claim is based on the manufacturer's actions in "its role as manufacturer"). Any other interpretation would subject manufacturers to liability on failure-to-warn claims without regard to the statute of repose, thereby thwarting Congress's objective in enacting the statute.
Similarly, we think that a successor manufacturer who has acquired the type certificate and who manufactures updated versions of the aircraft is likewise acting "in its capacity as a manufacturer" when it makes revised versions of the maintenance manual available for a fee. See Burroughs, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 132 ("We conclude . . . if GARA applies to shield the original manufacturer of a defective product from product liability claims such as the failure to warn alleged here, a successor manufacturer who has taken over the duties and obligations of the original manufacturer as to that product is also protected from liability for such claims."). Therefore, whether the theory of liability is based on products law or on the negligent performance of an undertaking, the successor manufacturer who issues updated manuals is acting in its capacity as a manufacturer and is entitled to the protection of the GARA statute of repose. See Alter, 944 F. Supp. at 538-40 (holding GARA's statute of repose precluded potential liability of manufacturer under any theory, including negligent performance of an undertaking under section 324A, "based on allegedly misleading inspection instructions in the maintenance manual that failed to warn or allow detection of the design flaw" in the subject helicopter); see also Schamel v. Textron-Lycoming, 1 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 1993) (stating in case involving Indiana products liability statute of repose, "The provision of service manuals and other sources of service information is not a separate and discrete, post-sale undertaking pursuant to § 324A; rather, such information is generally necessary to satisfy the manufacturer's duty to warn."); Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 418 N.E.2d 207, 212 (Ind. 1981) (holding that failure-to-warn claim against aircraft manufacturer is, ultimately, a products liability claim because it is premised on damage caused by "the manufacture, construction or design of the product").
We have not overlooked the legislative history upon which Mason relies to support his argument that the services provided by Schweizer went beyond its role as the manufacturer. The legislative hist
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|