34:1 - Normand, A Plaintiff's Guide to Surviving the GARA Defense: What Works and What Doesn't
Introduction: Since its peak in 1978, the general aviation industry in 
the United States has been on a steady decline. An industry that once sold 17,811 general aviation aircraft per year, only sold 899 by 1992. The result has been job losses totaling 100,000 and the deterioration of the United States’ position in international trade.
Although several factors contributed to the decline in the general aviation industry, in hearings before Congress, manufacturers and users of general aviation consistently identified excessive product liability costs as a major cause of the industry’s decline. Even though safety has improved over the past decades—the accident rate for general aviation dropping 30% from 1981 to 1994—manufacturers’ litigation costs have continued to increase. As a result, Congress enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA) in an effort to revitalize a once flourishing industry. GARA establishes “an 18 year statute of repose for a civil action against an aircraft manufacturer for damages arising out of an accident involving a general aviation aircraft.” Under GARA, a manufacturer is protected from liability if its aircraft is involved in an accident more than 18 years after the aircraft was delivered to its first purchaser. If a new component part is added to the aircraft or replaced by another part, the statue of repose starts over for that part “beginning on the date of completion of the replacement or addition.”
The stated purpose of the statute was “to limit excessive product liability costs, while at the same time affording fair treatment to persons injured in general aviation aircraft accidents.” One reason Congress determined a statute of repose would not be unfair to consumers is that most general aviation aircraft accidents are caused by pilot error rather than a manufacturing or design defect. Ninety-three percent are caused by pilot error, while only one percent are caused by manufacturing or design defects. Of those accidents that are caused by a manufacturing or design defect, nearly all of those defects are discovered early in the life of the aircraft. Thus, Congress determined it was “extremely unlikely that there [would] be a valid basis for a suit against the manufacturer of an aircraft that is more than 18 years old.” However, Congress noted that “even though a claimant is unlikely to be successful in a lawsuit against the manufacturer of an aircraft which is more than 18 years old,” these suits are frequently filed. And manufacturers have to spend money either litigating these suits or settling to avoid litigation. In addition, it would be unfair to hold manufacturers liable after their aircraft have a proven record of reliability: “A statute of repose is a legal recognition that, after an extended period of time, a product has demonstrated its safety and quality, and that it is not reasonable to hold a manufacturer legally responsible for an accident or injury occurring after that much time has elapsed.”
The enactment of GARA marked the first imposition of a federal statute of repose. Congress stressed that because of the uniqueness of the aviation industry, it was willing to take this unprecedented step; aviation is unlike any other industry in that it is the only one subjected to “‘cradle to grave’ Federal regulatory oversight.” Because of this oversight, limiting a manufacturer’s liability will not be to the detriment of safety. Even without the deterrent of infinite liability, manufacturers of general aviation still have to satisfy the rigid safety standards required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Congress identified two other elements of fairness in GARA. First, GARA provides four exceptions from the statute of repose: for knowing misrepresentations by manufacturers, for passengers seeking treatment for medical emergencies, for persons injured while not aboard the aircraft when it crashed, and for manufacturers’ written warranties. Second, the statute is “rolling” with regard to newly installed parts, so that if the part causing the accident is less than 18 years old, the manufacturer of that part is not protected by GARA.
Despite all of these rationalizations for the appropriateness of a federal statute of repose, there will still be occasions when a legitimate claimant injured in a general aviation accident because of a design or manufacturing defect is, nevertheless, barred by GARA from bringing a cause of action against the manufacturer. A claimant seeking to bring an action that might be barred by GARA needs to be familiar with the language of the statute and how it has been applied by courts. For the claimant pursuing a products liability action against a general aviation manufacturer, “GARA erects a formidable first hurdle.” But if the claimant defeats the GARA defense, for example, by showing that one of its exceptions applies or by showing that some aspect of the statute is not satisfied, then the claimant will be left only to contend with her state’s usual products liability laws.
This Comment seeks to guide plaintiffs potentially seeking products liability actions against general aviation manufacturers by providing an analysis of the practical application of the statute. It looks at the issues that have arisen regarding the application of GARA since its enactment in 1994 and analyzes the various outcomes in the case law to provide some indication of which arguments have merit and which ones are certain losers. Since GARA does not apply to an accident unless the aircraft involved is a general aviation aircraft, this Comment starts, in section II, by helping the reader understand what “general aviation aircraft” means according the definition set forth in GARA. Then, in section III, it explains how courts have determined who is a “manufacturer” protected by GARA, since the statute itself does not provide a definition. Next, section IV explores the issue of how to know when a manufacturer is acting in its capacity as a manufacturer, and when it is not. In section V, the Comment discusses issues surrounding how to determine when the statute begins to run. Section VI seeks to provide some clarity to the difficult questions that arise regarding GARA’s rolling provision, including how courts have handled revised flight manuals and overhauled or redesigned parts. In section VII, the Comment then discusses the four exceptions to GARA’s statute of repose, focusing mainly on the exception that has generated the most litigation—the “knowing misrepresentation” exception. Section VIII looks at the jurisdictional issues that have arisen in applying GARA, including whether GARA confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts and whether GARA applies to accidents that occurred outside the United States. Finally, section IX outlines the various constitutional challenges that have been lodged against GARA and explains why they have all failed.
Access this article in full length on LexisNexis or Westlaw or order a reprint. For reprint and subscription information, visit the Transportation Law Journal subscription Web site.
the United States has been on a steady decline. An industry that once sold 17,811 general aviation aircraft per year, only sold 899 by 1992. The result has been job losses totaling 100,000 and the deterioration of the United States’ position in international trade.Although several factors contributed to the decline in the general aviation industry, in hearings before Congress, manufacturers and users of general aviation consistently identified excessive product liability costs as a major cause of the industry’s decline. Even though safety has improved over the past decades—the accident rate for general aviation dropping 30% from 1981 to 1994—manufacturers’ litigation costs have continued to increase. As a result, Congress enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA) in an effort to revitalize a once flourishing industry. GARA establishes “an 18 year statute of repose for a civil action against an aircraft manufacturer for damages arising out of an accident involving a general aviation aircraft.” Under GARA, a manufacturer is protected from liability if its aircraft is involved in an accident more than 18 years after the aircraft was delivered to its first purchaser. If a new component part is added to the aircraft or replaced by another part, the statue of repose starts over for that part “beginning on the date of completion of the replacement or addition.”
The stated purpose of the statute was “to limit excessive product liability costs, while at the same time affording fair treatment to persons injured in general aviation aircraft accidents.” One reason Congress determined a statute of repose would not be unfair to consumers is that most general aviation aircraft accidents are caused by pilot error rather than a manufacturing or design defect. Ninety-three percent are caused by pilot error, while only one percent are caused by manufacturing or design defects. Of those accidents that are caused by a manufacturing or design defect, nearly all of those defects are discovered early in the life of the aircraft. Thus, Congress determined it was “extremely unlikely that there [would] be a valid basis for a suit against the manufacturer of an aircraft that is more than 18 years old.” However, Congress noted that “even though a claimant is unlikely to be successful in a lawsuit against the manufacturer of an aircraft which is more than 18 years old,” these suits are frequently filed. And manufacturers have to spend money either litigating these suits or settling to avoid litigation. In addition, it would be unfair to hold manufacturers liable after their aircraft have a proven record of reliability: “A statute of repose is a legal recognition that, after an extended period of time, a product has demonstrated its safety and quality, and that it is not reasonable to hold a manufacturer legally responsible for an accident or injury occurring after that much time has elapsed.”
The enactment of GARA marked the first imposition of a federal statute of repose. Congress stressed that because of the uniqueness of the aviation industry, it was willing to take this unprecedented step; aviation is unlike any other industry in that it is the only one subjected to “‘cradle to grave’ Federal regulatory oversight.” Because of this oversight, limiting a manufacturer’s liability will not be to the detriment of safety. Even without the deterrent of infinite liability, manufacturers of general aviation still have to satisfy the rigid safety standards required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Congress identified two other elements of fairness in GARA. First, GARA provides four exceptions from the statute of repose: for knowing misrepresentations by manufacturers, for passengers seeking treatment for medical emergencies, for persons injured while not aboard the aircraft when it crashed, and for manufacturers’ written warranties. Second, the statute is “rolling” with regard to newly installed parts, so that if the part causing the accident is less than 18 years old, the manufacturer of that part is not protected by GARA.
Despite all of these rationalizations for the appropriateness of a federal statute of repose, there will still be occasions when a legitimate claimant injured in a general aviation accident because of a design or manufacturing defect is, nevertheless, barred by GARA from bringing a cause of action against the manufacturer. A claimant seeking to bring an action that might be barred by GARA needs to be familiar with the language of the statute and how it has been applied by courts. For the claimant pursuing a products liability action against a general aviation manufacturer, “GARA erects a formidable first hurdle.” But if the claimant defeats the GARA defense, for example, by showing that one of its exceptions applies or by showing that some aspect of the statute is not satisfied, then the claimant will be left only to contend with her state’s usual products liability laws.
This Comment seeks to guide plaintiffs potentially seeking products liability actions against general aviation manufacturers by providing an analysis of the practical application of the statute. It looks at the issues that have arisen regarding the application of GARA since its enactment in 1994 and analyzes the various outcomes in the case law to provide some indication of which arguments have merit and which ones are certain losers. Since GARA does not apply to an accident unless the aircraft involved is a general aviation aircraft, this Comment starts, in section II, by helping the reader understand what “general aviation aircraft” means according the definition set forth in GARA. Then, in section III, it explains how courts have determined who is a “manufacturer” protected by GARA, since the statute itself does not provide a definition. Next, section IV explores the issue of how to know when a manufacturer is acting in its capacity as a manufacturer, and when it is not. In section V, the Comment discusses issues surrounding how to determine when the statute begins to run. Section VI seeks to provide some clarity to the difficult questions that arise regarding GARA’s rolling provision, including how courts have handled revised flight manuals and overhauled or redesigned parts. In section VII, the Comment then discusses the four exceptions to GARA’s statute of repose, focusing mainly on the exception that has generated the most litigation—the “knowing misrepresentation” exception. Section VIII looks at the jurisdictional issues that have arisen in applying GARA, including whether GARA confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts and whether GARA applies to accidents that occurred outside the United States. Finally, section IX outlines the various constitutional challenges that have been lodged against GARA and explains why they have all failed.
Access this article in full length on LexisNexis or Westlaw or order a reprint. For reprint and subscription information, visit the Transportation Law Journal subscription Web site.
No comments:
Post a Comment