Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp.
796 N.W.2d 541
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Two decedents died in a Cirrus SR22 crash; the district court entered judgment after a jury found Cirrus and UNDAF negligent.
- Plaintiffs alleged Cirrus owed a duty to train Prokop and breached an implied warranty by omitting a flight lesson on recovering from VFR into IMC, and Prokop was negligent in piloting.
- Cirrus purchased the aircraft from Cirrus Design Corporation; Prokop underwent Cirrus’s transition training provided by UNDAF as part of the purchase.
- Training materials included a syllabus with Flight 4a: Recovery from VFR into IMC (autopilot assisted); a blank rating for that maneuver suggested it was not taught.
- Evidence showed Cirrus provided autopilot instructions in manuals and transition training; some trial testimony suggested the missing Flight 4a maneuver contributed to the crash.
- The district court denied JMOL and a new trial; the jury allocated fault among Cirrus, UNDAF, and Prokop’s estate and awarded substantial damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to train under product liability | Prokop and Kosak seek duty to warn via training | No duty to train part of warning duty; training not required by product liability | No duty to provide training within product-liability theory |
| Educational-malpractice bar applicability | Educational-malpractice doctrine should not bar negligence claims | Claims sound in educational malpractice and barred | Claims sound in educational malpractice and are barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2007) (duty in negligence is a legal question)
- Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. 1987) (duty is legal question for jury unless no duty)
- ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 544 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 1996) (district court error for submitting negligence without duty)
- Alsides v. Brown Inst., Ltd., 592 N.W.2d 468 (Minn. App. 1999) (educational-malpractice bar limits claims challenging educational quality)
- Gray v. Badger Mining Corp., 676 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2004) (duty to warn includes adequate instructions; warning standards)
- Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 258 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. 1977) (warning must attract attention, explain mechanism, and provide safe-use instructions)