 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mason v. Schweizer Aircraft Corp.11/14/2002
ory cited by Mason shows the following reason for limiting the reach of the statute of repose to suits brought against a manufacturer "in its capacity as a manufacturer":
The latter limitation is intended to insure that parties who happen to be manufacturers of an aircraft or a component part are not immunized from liability they may be subject to in some other capacity. For example, in the event a party who happened to be a manufacturer committed some negligent act as a mechanic of an aircraft or as a pilot, and such act was a proximate cause of an accident, the victims would not be barred from bringing a civil suit for damages against that party in its capacity as a mechanic. H.R. Rep. 103-525, pt. 2, at 7, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1649.
One author analyzing GARA made the following observation with respect to this limitation:
When the manufacturer acts in any capacity other than its role in the manufacturing of the original part, it loses the protection of GARA to the extent that its role caused or contributed to the accident. What other role might a manufacturer play? Many component part manufacturers offer overhaul and part rebuilding services. In addition, some manufacturers are becoming involved in certain maintenance programs related to their own aircraft, as their expertise and facilities allow them to actively compete in the industry. As a result, if a manufacturer plays a role deviating from that of an original manufacturer, it will not reap protection under GARA. Robert F. Hedrick, A Close and Critical Analysis of the New General Aviation Revitalization Act, 62 J. Air L. & Com. 385, 399 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Anton, 63 J. Air L. & Com. at 789 ("Since many manufacturers provide overhaul, rebuilding services, and maintenance services, their work in those capacities may be susceptible to suit after the expiration of the period of repose.").
We do not think Schweizer crossed the line from manufacturer to service provider by selling updated maintenance manuals. The California court rejected a similar contention in Burroughs where the successor manufacturer had provided service information, holding "itself out as the source of FAA-approved service information, parts catalogues, and replacement parts" to its "potential economic benefit." 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 136. Noting that the defendant had not actually performed services or repairs on the allegedly defective carburetor, the court concluded the successor manufacturer had not "acted in any capacity other than as a manufacturer carrying out its obligation to ensure airworthiness." Id. at 138. We need not consider whether a manufacturer who provides services beyond updates to the FAA-required maintenance manual, such as telephone consultation on service issues, would likewise be deemed to be acting "in its capacity as a manufacturer." That is because Mason makes no allegation in the present case that erroneous advice was given as part of Schweizer's telephone consultation service, only that Schweizer failed to give adequate warnings with respect to the air filter housing in its written materials. Thus, we hold the allegedly negligent acts by Schweizer were performed "in its capacity as a manufacturer," thereby falling within the protection of the statute of repose.
V. Does the "Rolling Provision" of the GARA Statute of Repose Apply Here?
Mason asserts that even if the GARA statute of repose is applicable here, the maintenance manual provided by Schweizer is a replacement part subject to GARA's "rolling provision," which in essence triggers a new statutory period for a replacement part running from the date of replacement. See 49 U.S.C. § 40101 note, § 2(a)(2). Be
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.
|
|