Damian v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7316
Tex. App.2011Background
- Appellants filed suit on January 25, 2002, alleging strict products-liability and negligence claims related to a Bell 407 helicopter crash.
- Jury trial occurred in August 2007; verdict found design defect, proportional negligence by Bell and Captain Damian, and total damages of $294,300; Bell acted without malice.
- Trial court entered final judgment on February 28, 2008; both sides cross-appealed and the court affirmed in part and reversed/ rendered in part.
- Parties challenged standing of Gloria Gasperi’s equitably-adopted children to wrongful death claims, challenged the survival claim capacity and relation-back, and litigated preemption and limitations issues; Panamá statute of limitations was invoked to toll claims.
- The court held that (a) equitably-adopted children lacked standing to wrongful death, (b) Carla’s post-limitations capacity cured Gloria’s estate survival claims, (c) no field or conflict preemption barred the design-defect claims, and (d) Panamanian limitations did not bar the action; the windshields/ restraints design-defect issues were tried to a jury with mixed expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of design claims by federal law | Vargas contends FAA regulations do not preempt state design-defect claims | Bell argues field and conflict preemption apply to design claims | Field preemption rejected; conflict preemption rejected; state design claims survive |
| Equitably-adopted children’s standing to wrongful death | Gasperi children should be allowed to pursue wrongful death claims | Goss/Robinson precedent bars equitably-adopted children from wrongful death recovery | Equitably-adopted children have no standing; Robinson and Goss controlling |
| Capacity to pursue Gloria’s estate survival claim; relation back | Carla’s later appointment cured pre-limitations lack of capacity | Lovato/Lorentz guidance may not apply; capacity must be timely challenged | Carla’s post-limitations capacity cured pre-limitations lack; survival claim not time-barred; related issues need not be decided |
| Panamanian statute of limitations | Suit timely under Panamanian one-year limit due to criminal investigation timing | Panamanian limit bars action if not timely filed | Panamanian limitations satisfied; action timely under art. 1706, so not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (U.S. 2000) (preemption analysis; field preemption distinctions)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-abuse-no-evidence review standards; proper standard of review for sufficiency)
- Lovato v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. 2005) (post-limitations capacity curing survival claims; relation-back implications)
- Lorentz v. Dunn, 171 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. 2005) (survival claim viability via post-limitations capacity appointment)
- Robinson v. MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc., 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (Robinson factors for expert reliability; admissibility standards)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1999) (design-defect proof; no need to build and test prototype; feasibility showed)