Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive, Corp., 876 F. Supp. 2d 479

Background

This is a wrongful death and survival action against Lycoming/AVCO concerning a 2005 airplane crash that killed David Sikkelee and injured a passenger.
The decedent’s aircraft used Lycoming’s 0-320-D2C engine, with a replacement Marvel Schebler MA-4SPA carburetor installed during a 2004 overhaul.
Lycoming contends it last touched the product in 1969 and that the replacement carburetor/parts were manufactured and overhauled by others, thus avoidance of liability.
Plaintiff argues Lycoming’s design control over the engine overhaul and mandatory installation of the MA-4SPA carburetor makes Lycoming a de facto manufacturer.
The court applies Pennsylvania law on manufacturing liability, with Restatement Second controlling unless Pennsylvania courts adopt Restatement Third; issue of law and causation are disputed.
The court grants partial summary judgment for the 1969 engine status but denies summary judgment regarding the 2004 overhaul and potential Lycoming liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lycoming manufactured, distributed, or sold a defective product	Sikkelee shows Lycoming de facto manufacture via design/control over overhaul.	Lycoming last touched the product in 1969; replacement carburetor/parts were made by others; no manufacture.	Genuine issue of material fact exists as to de facto manufacture.
Whether a strict liability design defect exists in the 2004 overhaul	Defective throttle body-to-bowl assembly designed/mandated by Lycoming caused the defect.	Lycoming did not design/produce the replacement carburetor; no design defect by Lycoming.	Design defect question remains for trial; summary judgment denied.
Whether Lycoming failed to warn about the defective carburetor design	Lycoming’s manuals and service bulletins lacked adequate warnings; FAA reporting failures alleged.	No meaningful evidence disproving warnings; Lycoming argues not a manufacturer.	Genuine issue of material fact as to failure to warn survives summary judgment.
Whether Lycoming breached federal aviation standards in negligence	Lycoming’s approvals, SB 366, and failure to report violations show breach of FAA standards.	Lycoming argues lack of duty as non-manufacturer; FAA standard application disputed.	Negligence claim survives to the extent supported by federal standards; summary judgment denied.
What law governs strict liability analysis	Restatement Third would apply per Third Circuit precedents.	Second Restatement governs; Beard v. Johnson indicates continued use of Second.	Restatement Second applies; Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Beard decision favors Second.

Key Cases Cited

Mellon v. Barre-Natl Drug Co., 431 Pa. Super. 175, 636 A.2d 187 (1993) (threshold manufacturer/seller requirement in products liability)
Kimco Dev. Corp. v. Michael D’s Carpet Outlets, 536 Pa. 1, 637 A.2d 603 (1993) (enterprise liability concept in strict liability)
Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp. (Pridgen I), 588 Pa.405, 905 A.2d 422 (2006) (GARA repose context; type certificate holder liability considerations)
Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp. (Pridgen II), Pa. Super. Ct. 2009 (2009) (implications for design liability of type certificate holder)
Beard v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 41 A.3d 823 (Pa. 2012) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to adopt Restatement Third)
Covell v. Bell Sports, Inc., 651 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2011) (predictive stance on Restatement Third vs Second in diversity)
Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg. Inc., 563 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2009) (predicts Pennsylvania adoption of Restatement Third)
Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978) (design defect framework under Restatement Second)
Salvador v. Atlantic Boiler Co., 457 Pa. 24, 319 A.2d 903 (1974) (manufacturer as guarantor of product safety)
Donoughe v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 936 A.2d 52 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (failure to warn considerations in product liability)