796 F.3d 757
7th Cir.2015Background
- May 7, 2005: Fairchild SA227-DC Metro (VH-TFU) operated by Transair crashed into terrain near Lockhart River, Australia; 15 fatalities. ATSB concluded crash was a controlled flight into terrain and that installation of an EGPWS likely would have prevented the accident.
- Plaintiffs (estate administrators) sued multiple defendants alleging contributions to the crash, including M7 Aerospace (successor to Fairchild), Jeppesen (approach chart publisher), and Honeywell (GPWS manufacturer).
- M7 acquired Fairchild’s assets and type certificate in bankruptcy; it sold parts, manuals, and technical support for Metros but never manufactured complete aircraft and did not assume Fairchild’s service contracts.
- Jeppesen published RNAV approach charts for Lockhart River using source data from Airservices Australia (ASA); charts complied with ASA but did not depict terrain elevations beneath the flight path. Plaintiffs rely on ATSB findings that the chart design could impair situational awareness.
- Honeywell manufactured GPWS units (and EGPWS units) but did not sell or recommend an EGPWS to Transair; no GPWS wreckage or cockpit voice recorder data survived, so performance of the GPWS on the accident flight is unknown.
- District court granted summary judgment for M7, Jeppesen, and Honeywell; plaintiffs appealed. Appellate court affirmed, addressing jurisdictional challenges and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M7 (Fairchild successor) had a duty to warn by operation of law to Transair about installing an EGPWS | M7 succeeded Fairchild’s product line and technical role and thus had a continuing relationship and duty to warn owners/operators (Transair) of defects and need for EGPWS | M7 never assumed Fairchild’s service contracts, did not service the specific aircraft, lacked knowledge that Transair operated this aircraft, so no continuing relationship and no duty | No duty by operation of law; summary judgment for M7 affirmed |
| Whether M7 voluntarily undertook a duty to warn and whether Transair relied on any such undertaking | Even if M7 undertook to warn, Transair relied on M7’s representations and omissions | Plaintiffs produced no evidence Transair relied on M7 (no communications, no reliance facts) | No voluntary-duty liability; plaintiffs failed to show reliance; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Jeppesen’s charts proximately caused the crash (causation) | Chart design defects (lack of terrain depiction, contouring, offset depiction) could have caused pilots to lose situational awareness and descend below minimum safe altitude | No evidence the crew used Jeppesen charts on descent; no surviving witnesses or flight recorder; plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence establishing probability of causation | No admissible evidence of probable causation; summary judgment for Jeppesen affirmed |
| Whether Honeywell’s GPWS (or failure to recommend EGPWS) caused the crash or gave rise to a duty to warn purchasers | GPWS failed to alert properly and Honeywell should have warned initial purchaser about superiority of EGPWS | No evidence a GPWS was present/functioning; no expert proof of defect; duty to warn not established because no design defect shown and plaintiffs failed Rule 56.1 compliance | No evidence of causation or defect; no duty to warn to initial purchaser; summary judgment for Honeywell affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mut. Fund Market-Timing Litig., 468 F.3d 439 (7th Cir. 2006) (procedural rule on finality and appeals)
- Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897 (2015) (definition of final decision for appellate jurisdiction)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (failure to state a claim is a merits issue, not a jurisdictional defect)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (exception for claims "wholly insubstantial and frivolous" to defeat jurisdiction)
- Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992) (plaintiff must show product probably contributed to injury; speculation insufficient)
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 955 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. 2011) (no postsale duty to retrofit or warn for defects discovered after product left manufacturer)