Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp.
2012 Minn. LEXIS 305
Minn.2012Background
- Prokop purchased a Cirrus SR22 and died in a crash with Kosak; Cirrus provided a two-day transition training included in the purchase price, but Prokop did not receive Flight Lesson 4a (Recovery from VFR into IMC with autopilot).
- Prokop was licensed for VFR only and lacked instrument rating; he entered IMC-like conditions, became spatially disoriented, and crashed after an accelerated stall.
- UNDAF, contracted to provide transition training, intervened; the district court consolidated suits against Cirrus and UNDAF.
- A jury found Cirrus, UNDAF, and Prokop’s estate negligent; Cirrus and UNDAF sought JMOL; the court denied, then the court of appeals reversed.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court held Cirrus did not owe a duty to provide Flight Lesson 4a or assume a tort duty to train outside contract; the judgment was affirmed without addressing educational malpractice or causation issues.
- The dissent would have held Cirrus owed a tort duty to provide Flight Lesson 4a and to assume responsibility despite the contract, and would have allowed the jury verdict to stand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cirrus owed Prokop a duty to provide Flight Lesson 4a | Glorvigen, Gartland, Prokop’s estate: duty to warn includes training; Flight Lesson 4a promised. | Cirrus: duty to warn satisfied by written instructions; no duty to train; cannot arise from contract. | No, Cirrus did not owe a duty to train; duty to warn was satisfied by written materials. |
| Whether the educational malpractice doctrine bars the claim | Foreseeable lack of training caused injury; doctrine should not bar tort recovery. | Educational malpractice doctrine bars claims where education or training is at issue. | Not reached due to dispositive duty ruling; issue not necessary to decide. |
| Whether Cirrus assumed a duty to provide Flight Lesson 4a outside contract | Cirrus promised training; assumption of duty in tort is possible even with contract. | Assumption barred by contract; cannot impose extra-tort duties. | Not reached—court held no duty existed; assumption argument not necessary to decide. |
| Whether UNDAF liability as intervenor is proper | UNDAF participated in training; liable for its role. | UNDAF as intervenor bears no independent duty to warn. | Not reached; majority affirmed JMOL on Cirrus’s lack of duty. |
| Whether the evidence supports causation against Cirrus/UNDAF | Omission of Flight Lesson 4a caused crash. | No causal link shown; warning adequate. | Not reached; court affirmed JMOL on absence of duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Badger Mining Corp., 676 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2004) (duty to warn; adequate instructions; foreseeability as linchpin of duty)
- Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 258 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. 1977) (warning must enable safe use; not limited to training)
- Germann v. F.L. Smithe Mach. Co., 395 N.W.2d 922 (Minn. 1986) (warning duties; dangers in failure to warn and error in instructions)
- Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. 1987) (adequacy of warning for jury determination after duty established)
- Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2011) (duty as threshold issue; proximate cause and breach later)
- 80 S. Eighth St. Ltd. P’ship v. Carey-Canada, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1992) (economic loss rule; tort/contract distinction in damages)
- Lesmeister v. Dilly, 330 N.W.2d 95 (Minn. 1983) (contractual duties; tort liability may accrue despite contract in certain injuries)
- United States v. Johnson, 853 F.2d 619 (8th Cir. 1988) (when contract provides only source of duties, tort liability may be improper)