Hetzer-Young v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

Decision Date08 October 2009
Docket NumberNo. 92422.,92422.
Citation921 N.E.2d 683,184 Ohio App.3d 516,2009 Ohio 5365
PartiesHETZER-YOUNG et al., Appellants, v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION et al., Appellees.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy, Jamie R. Lebovitz, and Brenda M. Johnson, Cleveland; Landye Bennett Blumstein L.L.P. and Matthew K. Clarke; and The Wolk Law Firm, Philip J. Ford, Bradley J. Stoll, and Arthur Alan Wolk, Philadelphia, PA, for appellants.

Davis & Young, C. Richard McDonald, and Megan D. Novinc, Cleveland; and Perkins Coie, Mary P. Gaston, Seattle, WA, James N. Leik, Anchorage, AK, and Clark R. Nichols, Seattle, WA, for appellee Precision Airmotive Corporation.

Thompson Hine L.L.P., and Elizabeth B. Wright, Cleveland, for appellees Elano Corporation and Unison Industries, L.L.C.

Bahret & Associates Co. and Robert J. Bahret, Holland, for appellee Johnson Aviation Company.

Wiles Boyle Burkholder & Bringardner and James M. Wiles, Columbus, for the Textron defendants and Avco Corporation.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, Presiding Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Rebecca Hetzer-Young et al.,1 appeal the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment in favor of (1) defendants-appellees Elano Corporation and Unison Industries, L.L.C., (2) defendants-appellees Lycoming Engines, a.k.a. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division; Textron Systems Corporation; Avco Corporation; and Textron, Inc., and (3) defendant-appellee Precision Airmotive L.L.C.2 For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to Elano Corporation and Unison Industries, L.L.C, we affirm the decision as to the other defendants-appellees, and we remand the matter for further proceedings.

The Accident

{¶ 2} This case arises from an airplane crash that occurred at the Lawrence County Airport in Chesapeake, Ohio, on March 15, 2005. The aircraft was a Grumman American AA-5. On board was Dr. Michael Young, who was the pilot; his daughter, Ginny Young; and her friend, Charles Lampe. All three on board died.

{¶ 3} According to the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") factual report, the aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff. Eyewitnesses to the crash observed that Dr. Young made two attempts at landing the airplane. On the first approach, the aircraft appeared too high, and Dr. Young executed a "go-around" for a second approach. During the second approach, the aircraft appeared to be high, fast, and long down the runway. Engine power was heard being applied, the airplane continued in a "nose high," "steep climb" position, followed by the right wing dropping, a loss of power, and the plane descending nose first to the ground. A postcrash fire consumed a majority of the main wreckage.

The Lawsuit

{¶ 4} Appellants, who are representatives of the decedents' estates, maintain that the crash occurred as a result of a sudden engine failure at low altitude because of a defect and failure in the aircraft's muffler and the carburetor engine component. They filed this wrongful-death, products-liability action against numerous defendants, including the manufacturer of the aircraft's muffler, Elano Corporation ("Elano"), which later merged into Unison Industries, L.L.C. (collectively, "Unison"); the manufacturer of the aircraft's engine, Lycoming, and certain companies associated with Lycoming (collectively, "Lycoming");3 the product-line successor to the manufacturer of the carburetor for the engine, Precision Airmotive L.L.C. ("Precision");4 as well as other parties who are not a part of this appeal.5 In the complaint, appellants set forth claims for strict liability; negligence; misrepresentation; concert of action; and willful, wanton and outrageous conduct.

The Aircraft

{¶ 5} The subject Grumman American AA-5 aircraft had an airworthiness date of July 16, 1974. Grumman American Aviation Corporation ("Grumman") sold the aircraft to its first purchaser, Firebird Aviation, around August 1974. Shortly thereafter, Firebird Aviation sold the aircraft to Harold L. Wylie. It is undisputed that at the time of the March 2005 accident, the aircraft was more than 30 years old.

The Muffler

{¶ 6} Elano manufactured the muffler installed on the accident aircraft. The muffler was marked with the date code "04-74," demonstrating that it was manufactured by Elano in April 1974. Elano later merged into Unison.

{¶ 7} The engine logbook for the aircraft contains an entry dated August 28, 1987, that states "replaced muffler," which was entered by Edward Ramsey, an FAA-licensed airframe and powerplant ("A & P") mechanic. Appellants, through their experts, maintain that the logbook entry establishes that the original muffler was replaced with a new muffler. Appellants' theory of liability is that the aircraft experienced a sudden loss of engine power when the muffler's flame tube separated and blocked the exhaust.

{¶ 8} Unison challenges the admissibility of the engine-logbook entry and claims that the evidence is insufficient to establish that a new muffler was installed in 1987.

The Engine and the Carburetor

{¶ 9} The aircraft engine was manufactured by Lycoming. Lycoming obtained a "type certificate" from the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") through a certification process that is intended to make sure that the aircraft meets the minimum standards for performance and safety set forth by the FAA.

{¶ 10} Federal aviation regulations require that "[t]he fuel system of the engine must be designed and constructed to supply an appropriate mixture of fuel to the cylinders throughout the complete operating range of the engine under all flight and atmospheric conditions." 14 C.F.R. 33.35(a). Lycoming conceded that "[f]or maintaining the flow limits on a particular carburetor as it is installed in the engine, that is our responsibility."

{¶ 11} The aircraft's engine was equipped with a Marvel-Shebler model MA-4SPA carburetor that was manufactured on or about February 22, 1974. The carburetor is a component of the engine. The primary function of the carburetor is to deliver the appropriate fuel/air mixture to the engine. The product line was eventually sold to Precision.

{¶ 12} The Lycoming engine, including the carburetor component, was shipped to Grumman on April 26, 1974, and thereafter was installed on the subject aircraft. The original engine and carburetor remained on the aircraft until the 2005 crash.

The Float and the Open-Cell Defect

{¶ 13} The carburetor utilizes a float to help maintain the correct fuel level for delivery to the engine. The float on the subject aircraft was a Rogers composite Nitrophyl float.

{¶ 14} When Marvel-Shebler began manufacturing the carburetor in the 1930s, the floats were made out of metal. By 1961, the floats were being made out of composite materials.

{¶ 15} In the late 1970s, Marvel-Shebler began receiving reports that some composite floats were absorbing fluid. This resulted in the floats becoming less buoyant and sinking, thus affecting the carburetor's ability to control fuel flow.

{¶ 16} After Facet acquired the MA-series carburetor product line, Facet issued service bulletins in April and May 1984, indicating that composite floats could absorb fuel and directing aircraft owners to replace the composite floats with metal floats. The same year, Facet asked the FAA to issue an airworthiness directive ("AD") requiring aircraft owners to replace composite floats with metal floats.

{¶ 17} In response, the FAA issued a "notice of proposed rule making" that proposed the adoption of a new AD that would require the replacement of all composite floats with metal floats on all Facet (Marvel-Shebler) model carburetors. 49 F.R. 33694, effective August 24, 1984. The FAA expressed that "[t]he proposed AD is needed to prevent fuel absorption of the composite floats that causes an unsafe weight increase affecting fuel flow which could result in engine start fires or inflight engine stoppage." Id. The FAA sought comments from the manufacturers on the proposed AD.

{¶ 18} Appellants maintain that Lycoming and Marvel-Shebler/Facet discovered that the float-saturation problem was occurring due to an "open-cell" defect in the composite floats. Appellants claim that Lycoming and Facet misrepresented to the FAA that the reason for the float-saturation problem was the improper use of automotive fuels and concealed their knowledge that the composite floats suffered from an open-cell defect. The FAA withdrew the proposed AD on April 15, 1985. 50 F.R. 14716, effective April 15, 1985.

{¶ 19} In February 1990, an Alaska Superior Court judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Facet knew that some Model Nos. 30-628 and 30-759 Rogers composite floats contained an open-cell structure and that despite a lack of substantiating evidence, Facet represented to the FAA that auto gas had an adverse affect on the Rogers composite float. See Palmer v. Borg-Warner Corp. (Alaska 1992), 838 P.2d 1243, 1246. Lycoming was a party to that lawsuit.

{¶ 20} In 1990, Facet again requested the FAA for an AD mandating the replacement of the composite floats with metal floats. Facet continued to represent that it believed the saturation of the composite floats was due to the "use of low lead fuels and autogas" and also indicated that "there may be other causes for float saturation." This time, Lycoming supported the issuance of the AD. Neither Facet nor Lycoming disclosed an open-cell defect to the FAA. Further, Precision, after it acquired the MA-series carburetor product line from Facet, requested the FAA for an AD on September 5, 1991, but did not report an open-cell defect.

{¶ 21} Despite the requests to the FAA and the FAA's awareness that the composite floats were absorbing fuel, the FAA declined to issue an AD. In a letter to Precision dated July 8, 1992, the FAA concluded that "there was not a significant difference in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Everhart v. Merrick Mfg. II LLC
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 2022
    ...of statute of limitations and statute of repose by failing to answer the complaint and assert them); and Hetzer-Young v. Precision Airmotive Corp. , 184 Ohio App.3d 516, 2009-Ohio-5365, 921 N.E.2d 683, ¶ 24-32 (8th Dist.) (General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, 49 U.S.C. 40101, as a s......
  • Estate of Becker v. Forward Tech. Indus., Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 2015
    ...certificate holder of the engine." (citing 14 C.F.R. §§ 21.11 –21.55 )).3 49 U.S.C. § 44704(a)(1) ; Hetzer–Young v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 184 Ohio App.3d 516, 522, 921 N.E.2d 683 (2009) (the certification process ensures that "the aircraft meets the minimum standards for performance an......
  • Hetzer-Young v. Elano Corp., Appellate Case No. 2013-CA-32
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • March 21, 2014
    ...on the 18-year statute of repose in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, 49 U.S.C. 40101. See Hetzer-Young v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 184 Ohio App.3d 516, 2009-Ohio-5365, 921 N.E.2d 683, ¶ 2 and 23-24 (8th Dist.). On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the j......
  • Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • March 19, 2014
    ...”) (interpreting the General Aviation Revitalization Act's (“GARA”) statute of repose); see also Hetzer–Young v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 184 Ohio App.3d 516, 921 N.E.2d 683, 698 (8th 2009) (finding “any knowing misrepresentation, concealment, or withholding of information regarding the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT