Inmon v. AIR TRACTOR, INC.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16994
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Inmon, the plaintiff, sued Air Tractor, Inc. and others for injuries from a plane crash while dusting crops; the right wing failed in flight and the airplane crashed and was destroyed.
- The aircraft was manufactured in 1982 and was not airworthy at the time of the accident due to a missed required annual inspection.
- Inmon purchased the airplane in 1998 from a third party with no warranty; the airplane's airframe had a stated safe life of 5,000 hours.
- The crash occurred less than four years after a 1993 modification kit replaced the original spar splice with a five-bolt design, extending the model’s potential safe life when combined with subsequent service letters.
- The modification work was done by a dealer, not the manufacturer, nine years prior to the accident; the dealer used factory parts from the manufacturer for the modification kit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer, concluding that the service letters and inspections did not toll the repose periods, and dismissed the complaint as a sanction for violation of court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five-bolt spar splice restart the repose period | Inmon contends the replacement part restarted the 18- and 12-year repose periods. | Manufacturer argues modification of the original part does not restart the repose and the aircraft’s defect is older than the repose period. | No restart of repose; replacement did not toll. |
| Whether tolling/maintenance data applied under GARA | Service letters and inspections toll the repose period for the replacement component. | Service letters and maintenance do not toll under GARA; modification is not a new component triggering rolling repose. | Tolling not applicable; repose periods remained untolled. |
| Whether the sanction of dismissal was proper or necessary to address court-order violations | Sanctions were improper; the core issue is repose restart. | Court’s sanctions were proper given violations of orders; independent of repose. | Court affirms summary judgment on repose; does not need to reach sanctions ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cassoutt v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 742 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (tolling limitations under Florida statute of repose via replacement component)
- Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2001) (GARA framework and rolling repose concept)
- Holliday v. Extex, 457 F.Supp.2d 1112 (D. Haw. 2006) (replacement vs. design modification under GARA rolling provision)
- Hiser v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 111 Cal.App.4th 640 (Cal. App. 4th 2003) (modification does not restart repose)
- Moyer v. Teledyne Cont'l Motors, Inc., 979 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (service bulletins do not extend repose)
- Alter v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 944 F.Supp.531 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (replacement vs. modification under rolling repose)