Jana Davidson v. Rockwell International Cor, 882 F.3d 180

On May 31, 2011, two employees (Farmer, pilot; Davidson, sensor operator) flew a Twin Commander 690A to investigate recurring cockpit smoke and fumes caused by oil leaking from the aircraft’s air cycle machine (ACM).
Both plaintiffs had long been aware of prior fume events; Farmer had reported ~50 prior incidents, had urged replacement of the ACM, and knew of health risks from tricresyl phosphate; Davidson had been warned by others and researched the problem.
During the flight at altitude, oil leakage from the ACM produced smoke and fumes causing irritation and respiratory difficulty; the crew donned oxygen and descended; post‑flight inspection confirmed oil leaking from ACM bearings.
The ACM had been manufactured/retrofitted by Fairchild Controls; Fairchild stopped ACM manufacture in the 1980s but installed the unit in 2007; the system was FAA‑certified for the aircraft.
Plaintiffs sued Fairchild (diversity jurisdiction); after transfer to S.D. Tex., the district court granted summary judgment for Fairchild on (1) design‑defect (plaintiffs lacked competent expert proof of a feasible alternative design) and (2) failure‑to‑warn (plaintiffs were knowledgeable users). Plaintiffs appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Design‑defect: whether plaintiffs proved a technologically and economically feasible alternative design	Hansen’s expert identified alternatives (oil‑less bearings/foil‑air bearings, sensors, filters, diverters) and cited a 1997 article showing air‑foil bearing use	Fairchild: plaintiffs’ theories were conclusory/hypothetical; the air‑foil theory was waived and, on the merits, Hansen offered no proof of feasibility for the 690A	Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiffs failed to present competent, non‑conclusory expert proof that an alternative design was feasible or in use for that aircraft
Failure‑to‑warn: whether Fairchild’s lack of warning proximately caused injury	Plaintiffs argued Fairchild failed to warn of the ACM’s hazard	Fairchild: plaintiffs were knowledgeable users aware of the hazard and its medical consequences; a warning would be superfluous	Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the specific hazard; the knowledgeable‑user defense bars recovery

Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 450 N.E.2d 204 (N.Y. 1983) (plaintiff must show feasible alternative design via expert testimony)
Kosmynka v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 462 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2006) (two methods to prove feasible alternative: prototype/testing or existing designs in use)
Guarascio v. Drake Assocs. Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (plaintiff expert in complex design cases must be competent and non‑conclusory)
Adams v. Genie Indus., Inc., 929 N.E.2d 380 (N.Y. 2010) (alternative designs must be more than theoretically possible)
Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2003) (evidence not referenced in summary‑judgment response is not properly before the district court)
Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 700 N.E.2d 303 (N.Y. 1998) (knowledgeable‑user and open‑and‑obvious defenses to failure‑to‑warn)