Abbasi v. Leading Edge Aviation Services, Inc., 0:16-cv-00295

Background

In Nov 2010 Leading Edge repaired a Cirrus SR22T after a taxi accident, removing and replacing both flaps; Miller (Leading Edge) recorded the work and later testified safety wire was present when the work was completed.
On Aug 3, 2011 Leading Edge’s foreman Stern signed the annual inspection; Cirrus test pilot Alm performed a post-maintenance test flight and inspected for safety wires; subsequent owners/inspectors also performed preflight checks.
Dr. Hamid Abbasi purchased the aircraft Nov 5, 2012; between then and Mar 29, 2013 the airplane accumulated ~114 flight hours and underwent additional maintenance by other shops after a Dec 19, 2012 hard landing.
On Mar 29, 2013 the right flap rod-end bolt backed out during approach, causing loss of control and a parachute-assisted crash; FAA inspectors concluded evidence suggested the bolt backed out of the flap assembly.
Plaintiffs allege Leading Edge negligently failed to reinstall safety wire on the right flap in 2010–2011; Leading Edge moved for summary judgment arguing record evidence shows safety wire was present when the aircraft left its control and intervening events could explain later loss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a genuine dispute exists that Leading Edge failed to reinstall safety wire after its 2010–2011 maintenance	Leading Edge was the last recorded shop to remove safety wire; no record shows later work on the right flap, so Leading Edge must have been responsible for the missing safety wire	Multiple witnesses (Miller, Stern, Alm, Holloran, Bennett) credibly testified safety wire was present after Leading Edge work; intervening maintenance, flights, and unrecorded work by other shops create alternative explanations	Court: No genuine dispute — testimony and records show safety wire was present when aircraft left Leading Edge; summary judgment for Leading Edge granted
Sufficiency of expert opinion to create triable issue	Plaintiffs’ expert opined it was "most likely" Leading Edge did not re-install the wire	Defendant: expert’s opinion is speculative and contradicts consistent eyewitness testimony	Court: Expert’s speculative conclusion insufficient to overcome the consistent, unrebutted testimony; does not create triable issue
Applicability of res ipsa loquitur or inference from absence of later recorded maintenance	Plaintiffs urge inference Leading Edge was responsible because no further recorded flap work occurred	Defendant notes lack of exclusive control, intervening events, and unrecorded maintenance by other parties	Court: Res ipsa not applicable; inference unreasonable given intervening events and other plausible causes
Credibility attacks on defense witnesses create material fact?	Plaintiffs challenge witnesses’ specific recollections and point to minor inconsistencies (e.g., Hobbs time)	Defendant relies on witnesses’ established customs/practices and their declarations they would not have signed or flown if safety wire were missing	Court: Collateral inconsistencies do not create material factual dispute; credibility assessments insufficient to defeat summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 1995) (on viewing evidence in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
Krenik v. Cty. of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff may not rest on mere allegations to create a factual dispute)
Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664 (8th Cir. 1992) (mere factual dispute insufficient; must be outcome-determinative)
Howard v. Columbia Pub. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2004) (moving party must show no material fact remains and nonmoving party must identify specific facts creating a triable controversy)
Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., 173 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 1999) (summary judgment evidentiary principles)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must produce more than speculative inference to resist summary judgment)
Bayside Holdings, Ltd. v. Viracon, Inc., 709 F.3d 1225 (8th Cir. 2013) (nonmoving party may not rely on mere speculation or conjecture)
Matter of Citizens Loan & Sav. Co., 621 F.2d 911 (8th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff must affirmatively show material issue remains)
Dupont v. Fred's Stores of Tenn., Inc., 652 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2011) (res ipsa loquitur requires exclusive control)
Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2007) (elements of negligence under Minnesota law)