Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 25 August 1976
• Citation: 132 Cal.Rptr. 541,61 Cal.App.3d 501
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; Katherine Marie AANESTAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce Arthur Bean, et al., Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 47558.

Page 541

132 Cal.Rptr. 541

61 Cal.App.3d 501

BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent;

Katherine Marie AANESTAD, as Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce Arthur Bean, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Civ. 47558.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Aug. 25, 1976.

Hearing Denied Oct. 21, 1976.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Sherman S. Welpton, Jr., Robert Forgnone and Dale F. Kinsella, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

No appearance by respondent Superior Court.

Magana & Cathcart, and Brian R. Magana, Los Angeles, for real party in interest Aanestad.

Kern & Wooley, and James I. Michaelis, Santa Monica, for real parties in interest Janet Eugenio Clark, as Administratrix of Estate of Richard T. Zettel, and Ross Aviation, Inc.

Kirtland & Packard, and E. A. Tharpe, III, Los Angeles, for Adams-Rite Mfg. Co.

POTTER, Associate Justice.

Petitioner Beech Aircraft Corporation (hereinafter 'Beech') seeks a writ of mandate compelling the superior court to grant its motion for summary judgment in three consolidated cases wherein Beech sought orders declaring (1) New Mexico law 'the applicable law in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties,' and (2) that under New Mexico law wrongful death damages 'arising out of the death of a passenger on a public conveyance may only be recovered from the common carrier which owned the conveyance.'

Statement of the Case ¹

The parties to the consolidated cases involved in this proceeding are Beech, the producer and manufacturer of a certain Beechcraft Queenair Aircraft; Adams-Rite Manufacturing Company (hereinafter 'Adams-Rite'), the designer and manufacturer of a door latching mechanism used in the Queenair Aircraft; Ross Aviation, Inc. (hereinafter 'Ross'), the owner and operator of the particular Queenair Aircraft, ² Katherine Marie Aanestad, the administratrix of the estate of Bruce Arthur Bean (hereinafter 'Aanestad/Bean'), a passenger killed when the Beechcraft plane crashed, and Janet Eugenio Clark, the administratrix of the estate of Richard T. Zettel, the pilot of the plane also killed in the crash (hereinafter 'Clark/Zettel').

The aircraft crashed on May 19, 1972, near the Albuquerque International Airport in Albuquerque, New Mexico, killing the pilot, Zettel, and all 8 passengers, including Bean. The alleged cause of the crash was the defective design of the aircraft and the defective door latching mechanism. The nose baggage compartment door is so located that, when opened, it intersects the are of the aircraft's left propeller. Though there was some dispute as to whether the door was latched prior to take-off (real parties in interest contend the door was latched while petitioner contends the contrary), all parties agree that when airborne the door opened, striking the propeller, whereupon the plane 'stalled, spun and crashed.'

Both administratrixes are residents of California, while decedents Bean and Zettel were residents of New Mexico. Ross is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business either in Albuquerque, New Mexico, according to petitioner, or Tulsa, Oklahoma, according to real parties in interest. Ross does substantial business in New Mexico. Beech is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wichita, Kansas. Beech contends it does little or no business in California. Real parties in interest contend Beech does 'substantial business' in California. ³ Adams-Rite is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Glendale, California.

Lawsuits resulting from the above accident include the Aanestad/Bean and Clark/Zettel wrongful death actions originally filed in the Superior Court of Orange County, and the actions of the remaining passengers for wrongful death filed in the United States District Court for New Mexico, under the heading Langham v. Beech Aircraft Corporation, No. 74--CIV. ⁴

The Aanestad/Bean and Clark/Zettel actions were filed December 8, 1972, and February 15, 1973, respectively; in each of them the defendants named were Beech Aircraft Corporation, the Hartwell Corporation, ⁵ and 10 Does. Adams-Rite was later served as Doe I. Liability was based upon negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability in tort.

On April 10, 1973, Beech moved to dismiss the Aanestad/Bean action upon grounds of lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, forum non conveniens. ⁶ This motion was denied upon the grounds that Beech's counsel had previously filed a general demurrer to the complaint, thus submitting Beech to the jurisdiction of the court. On April 19, 1973, counsel stipulated that an attempted removal of the actions to the federal court was improper since no complete diversity existed. Subsequently, both Beech and Adams-Rite filed demurrers to the 'purported fourth cause of action' of the Clark/Zettel complaint, which sought punitive damages, upon the ground that 'Under California Law, Punitive Damages May Not Be Recovered in an Action for Wrongful Death.' Beech's demurrer was filed May 17, 1973. Thereafter, on June 1, 1973, this demurrer was placed off calendar due to the court's granting of Adams-Rite's motion to change venue to Los Angeles County.

On February 27, 1973, the Orange County Superior Court sustained Beech's general demurrer to the 'purported Fourth Cause of Action' in the Aanestad/Bean complaint. Aanestad/Bean subsequently amended its complaint and Beech again demurred to the cause of action seeking punitive damages. In the meantime, the case was transferred to the Los Angeles court. On October 19, 1973, the Los Angeles Superior Court sustained the demurrer to the Aanestad/Bean first amended complaint, stating 'California will not permit a greater recovery than is allowed by its own statutory framework.' Thereupon, counsel stipulated that such ruling would apply equally to the Clark/Zettel litigation. On November 27, 1973, Beech answered the Clark/Zettel complaint, alleging contributory negligence on the part of Zettel.

On January 3, 1974, Adams-Rite answered the Clark/Zettel complaint and simultaneously filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and declaratory relief against Ross and Clark/Zettel. On March 1, 1974, Ross filed a demurrer to this cross-complaint, asserting that under either California or New Mexico law, no right of indemnity existed. On March 27, 1974, this demurrer was overruled. On May 7, 1974, Ross's motion to reconsider this ruling was denied. Thereafter, Ross filed a complaint for property damage and indemnity against Beech. On June 13, 1974, Beech countered this, filing a cross-complaint in the Ross action for indemnity against Clark/Zettel, Ross, and Adams-Rite. Ross's motion to consolidate the Clark/Zettel, Aanestad/Bean and Ross actions was granted on July 11, 1975. On October 1, 1975, Ross's demurrer to the Beech cross-complaint was sustained, the court holding that California law provided no such indemnity. In addition, a motion by Ross for judgment on the pleadings as to the Adams-Rite cross-complaint was granted with leave to amend. On November 25, 1975, Ross and Clark/Zettel's demurrers to Adams-Rite's first amended cross-complaint were sustained without leave to amend, and a formal order of dismissal was subsequently filed on December 12, 1975.

Prior to this, on September 19, 1975, Beech moved the court for an 'order of dismissal, stay or conditional dismissal on grounds of inconvenient forum, alternative motion to stay action.' This motion was based upon developments arising in the Langham actions filed in the United States District Court for New Mexico. The sole defendant in the Langham action at the time of these developments was Beech. ⁷

Beech had moved for judgment on the pleadings in the United States District Court for New Mexico in the Langham action. Beech contended that 'New Mexico law . . . while providing a remedy for wrongful death to a passenger against the common carrier (Ross), Arguably made that remedy the exclusive remedy.' The United States District Court determined this to be a correct statement of New Mexico law but ruled that the question of Ross's common carrier status was one of facts; hence, should Ross be found to be a contract carrier, an action for wrongful death would lie against Beech. After conducting a 'mini-trial' upon such question, the court, dismissing the jury, determined that Ross was a 'contract' carrier, and denied Beech's motion.

Nevertheless, finding the matter subject to 'difference of opinion,' the court certified it for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Thereafter, in August 1975, the Tenth Circuit ruled that Ross was not a contract carrier. However, the Circuit Court also determined that the issue whether the New Mexico wrongful death statute provided a remedy exclusively against the common carrier presented questions of New Mexico public policy subject to no controlling precedents. The court, pursuant to a New Mexico statute, certified the question to be answered by the New Mexico Supreme Court which accepted such certification.

Based on the above state of facts, Beech sought (1) a stay of the California actions pending resolution of the issue by the New Mexico Supreme Court, or (2) in the alternative a dismissal, claiming forum non conveniens. ⁸

On September 29, 1975, real parties in interest filed their opposition to Beech's motions. Basically, they asserted that no plaintiff was a party to the New Mexico action; therefore, they could not be bound by the New Mexico ruling. Moreover, any dismissal would result in extreme prejudice since the statute of limitations had run on any new action by plaintiffs. Further, no dismissal was warranted since the court could, if need be, apply New Mexico law. Beech's motions were denied on September 30, 1975.

On October 3, 1975, Beech...