45 F. Supp. 3d 431
M.D. Penn.2014Background
- Sikkelee sued Lycoming (Lycoming Engines Division) for injuries from a 2005 fatal crash involving a Cessna 172N with Lycoming-produced engine and a later overhauled MA-4SPA carburetor.
- The subject engine was manufactured in 1969 and spent most of its life in storage before being installed on the aircraft in 1998.
- Originally installed carburetor was replaced in 1998; a Kelly-overhauled replacement carburetor powered the aircraft in 2005 after Lycoming’s design.
- Lycoming holds a type certificate for the O-320-D2C engine and a production certificate; regulations govern design, maintenance, and replacement parts.
- Plaintiff asserts federal design- and certification-related violations under CARs/FARs and seeks recovery under state-law theories.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Lycoming’s summary-judgment motion, focusing on regulatory standards and preemption issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case and estoppel | Sikkelee argues law-of-the-case/estoppel bind Lycoming to federal standards. | Lycoming contends law-of-the-case/estoppel do not bar summary judgment. | Law-of-the-case and estoppel do not bar reconsideration; issues reanalyzeable. |
| Abdullah preemption and standard of care | Abdullah dictates a federal standard for aviation safety. | Abdullah preempts state-law standards; rely on federal regs as standards. | Court adheres to Abdullah; measure against specific regs, not a general standard. |
| Type certificate and design-reg claims | Type certification may not preclude jury review of design-compliance. | Type certification conclusively governs design-reg compliance. | Liability on design-reg claims precluded; type certification is conclusive. |
| § 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 reporting duty | Lycoming's failure to report defect to FAA could causally affect outcomes. | Multiple defenses; material facts disputed regarding duty and impact. | Summary judgment denied as to § 21.3 claims; triable issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdullah v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir.1999) (preemption of field; federal standards govern care)
- Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc., 613 F.3d 119 (3d Cir.2010) (reaffirms Abdullah preemption; discusses aviation safety field)
- In re TMI, 67 F.3d 1103 (3d Cir.1995) (federal standard of care in nuclear safety context)
- Varig Airlines v. United States, 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (FAA type certification role; federal standard-setting)
- Martin v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806 (9th Cir.2009) (discusses limits of federal common law in aviation design)