 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mason v. Schweizer Aircraft Corp.11/14/2002
cause the sale of instructional materials to the City of Cedar Rapids occurred within eighteen years of commencement of suit, argues Mason, his claims based on the absence of warnings in these materials are not barred.
Courts are divided on whether manuals are a "part" subject to the rolling provision of GARA. Compare Caldwell v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp., 230 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding an aircraft's flight manual is a part of the aircraft, not a separate product), with Alter, 944 F. Supp. at 538 (holding manufacturer's maintenance and repair manuals and revisions to those manuals were not new component systems). We need not decide this issue, however, because even if the manual at issue here were considered a component of the helicopter, it would not trigger GARA's rolling provision.
In Caldwell, the court held the mere fact a manual could be considered a part of the aircraft was not sufficient to start a new statutory period every time a revised version of the manual was distributed. 230 F.3d at 1158. It explained:
A revision to the manual does not implicate GARA's rolling provision, however, unless the revised part "is alleged to have caused death, injury , or damage." Just as the installation of a new rotor blade does not start the 18-year period of repose anew for purposes of an action for damages due to a faulty fuel system, a revision to any part of the manual except that which describes the fuel system would be irrelevant here. Furthermore, mere cosmetic changes (like changing the manual's typeface) do not revive the statute of repose. In sum, if Defendant substantively altered, or deleted, a warning about the fuel system from the manual within the last 18 years, and it is alleged that the revision or omission is the proximate cause of the accident, then GARA does not bar the action. Id. (citation omitted); accord Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 809, 151 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2002) (restating Caldwell holding that mere failure-to-warn, as opposed to a revision to a manual, will not allow a plaintiff to bypass the statute of repose). We agree with this analysis.
Turning to the record in the present case, we find bare allegations that Schweizer failed to warn the City of the need to inspect the housing and the dangers of a cracked housing. There is no evidence, nor is the argument even made, that Schweizer revised the manual prepared by its predecessors in any substantive fashion causally related to the crash in this case. Consequently, the rolling provision does not apply. Carolina Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1170-71 (D. Kan. 2001) (holding GARA statute of repose did not start from date maintenance manual was issued where there was no allegation that accident was caused by an alteration in the manual within eighteen years of the accident); cf. Butchkosky v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp., 855 F. Supp. 1251, 1257 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (holding, under Florida products liability statute of repose, that mere issuance of maintenance manual within the period of repose could not be used to circumvent statutory bar, as " he result would be evisceration of the statute of repose"). Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Schweizer.
VI. Summary.
We hold that Schweizer, as the holder of the type certificate for the Hughes model 269A helicopter, is a manufacturer within the meaning of the GARA statute of repose. Moreover, the failure-to-warn claim at issue in this case implicates Schweizer's role as a manufacturer, not as a maintenance provider, regardless of the theoretical label attached to the claim. Finally, we hold that the
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.
|
|