Burroughs v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

• Decision Date: 25 February 2000
• Docket Number: No. H018266.,H018266.
• Citation: 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 124,78 Cal.App.4th 681
• Parties: James BURROUGHS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORP., Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

93 Cal.Rptr.2d 124

78 Cal.App.4th 681

James BURROUGHS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORP., Defendant and Respondent.

No. H018266.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

February 25, 2000.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 2000.

Review Denied May 24, 2000.^*

Wolff, Ellis & Clausen, Gerald Clausen, San Francisco; Abramson & Smith, LLP, Albert R. Abramson, San Francisco, for Appellants James Burroughs et al.

Mendes & Mount, LLP, James W. Hunt, Mark R. Irvine, Los Angeles, for Respondent Precision Airmotive Corp.

Shea & Gardner, Richard M. Sharp, Frederick C. Schafrick, Washington, DC; Coddington, Hicks & Danforth, Clinton H. Coddington, Richard G. Grotch, Redwood City, for Amicus Curiae General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

Harvey M. Grossman, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P.J.

Plaintiffs suffered injuries in the crash of a light aircraft, allegedly due to a malfunction in the engine's carburetor. Defendant is an aircraft parts manufacturer who did not manufacture or sell this particular model of carburetor but acquired the product line from a predecessor who had acquired it from the original manufacturer. The carburetor was manufactured and sold in 1968, over 25 years prior to the accident. A recent federal statute of repose (The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), Pub.L. No. 103-298, 108 Stat. 155, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 note) bars claims arising from accidents involving light aircraft brought against "the manufacturer of any new component ... or other part of the aircraft, in its capacity as a manufacturer" (Pub.L. No 103-298, § 2(a), 108 Stat. 1552) more than 18 years after the product is first sold. The trial court in this case granted summary judgment against plaintiffs, finding that the federal statute barred their claims against defendant in its capacity as successor to the original manufacturer.

Two questions are presented in this appeal. Is defendant a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the federal statute? If the statute applies to bar plaintiffs' claims against defendant acting in its capacity as a manufacturer, can plaintiffs nonetheless proceed against defendant on a theory that defendant breached an independent duty to warn about the defective product? We find that defendant, as the successor manufacturer, stands in the shoes of the manufacturer and is entitled to the protection of GARA. We further find that defendant, in engaging in the conduct complained of by plaintiffs, was acting in its capacity as a manufacturer pursuant to the duties and obligations imposed by federal law on manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and aircraft parts. Plaintiffs' theory of independent liability is not viable under these circumstances. We therefore affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

On February 26, 1995, a two-seater aircraft piloted by plaintiff James Burroughs took off from Reed-Hillview Airport in San Jose. The passenger was plaintiff Jared Burroughs, James Burroughs's nephew. Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft lost power and crashed. Both James and Jared Burroughs suffered serious personal injuries. Plaintiff Joseph Burroughs, father of Jared, witnessed the crash from the ground.

Plaintiffs' expert stated that the source of the plane's losing power was a defective carburetor containing a float made from composite materials. Over time and with changes in the chemistry of gasoline, the composite float absorbed fuel and became heavy. The float's loss of buoyancy caused a change in the fuel-air mixture, resulting in interruption of power. The carburetor, known as the Marvel-Schebler Aviation carburetor, or M.S.A. § carburetor, Model MA-3A, was manufactured in 1968 by the Marvel-Schebler Division of Borg-Warner Corporation (now known as Borg-Warner Security Corp, hereafter "Borg-Warner"). Borg-Warner sold its Marvel-Schebler carburetor line to Facet Aerospace Products Co. in 1983 (a subsidiary of Facet Enterprises, Inc., hereafter "Facet"). Facet sold the Marvel-Schebler product line to Zenith Fuel Systems, Inc. in 1990, and shortly thereafter defendant Precision Airmotive Corp. (Precision) acquired the product line. Although Precision began manufacturing aircraft carburetors in 1991, it did not manufacture, design or sell the model of carburetor involved in the accident in this case. Production of this particular carburetor containing the composite float ceased in 1984, six years before Precision acquired the product line.

Problems with composite carburetor floats absorbing fuel and sinking were well documented. Facet issued a service bulletin in May of 1984 to "All Outlets," recommending the replacement of composite floats with metal floats in all Marvel-Schebler carburetors "at next overhaul or immediately." Later that year, in August of 1984, Facet requested that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issue an Airworthiness Directive relating to the replacement of composite floats in Marvel-Schebler carburetors. An Airworthiness Directive (AD) is a finding by the FAA of an unsafe condition in a product and it orders corrective action with which aircraft owners must comply. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking appeared in the Federal Register proposing the adoption of an AD that would require all carburetor composite floats to be replaced with metal floats by 1988. The notice stated that "the FAA has determined that composite carburetor floats are absorbing fuel and becoming less buoyant, thus adversely affecting the carburetor's ability to control fuel level, leading eventually to carburetor flooding." The notice further stated that Facet Enterprises, which had purchased the Marvel-Schebler carburetor line, had obtained a design change which would reintroduce a metal float compatible with the chemistry of current blends of aviation gasoline. Facet had available a replacement kit for approximately $57, which would require approximately four hours to install. Although this notice was published in the Federal Register, the Airworthiness Directive was not adopted by the FAA.

In June of 1990, Facet renewed its request for an Airworthiness Directive. In its letter to the FAA, Facet noted that there continued to be incidents of saturation of composite floats due to increased use of low lead fuels and autogas. Facet estimated that it had sold approximately 75,000 replacement kits but that there were still approximately 83,000 composite floats in the field. Facet urged the issuance of an AD requiring the replacement of the composite floats remaining in the field. The engine manufacturer, Textron-Lycoming, Inc., supported the request.

Shortly thereafter, in July of 1990, Precision acquired the Marvel-Schebler product line. In October of 1990, Precision issued a "Mandatory Service Bulletin" (number MSA-1) "to clarify time of compliance for replacement of the carburetor float and to reflect acquisition of the Facet Aerospace product line (Marvel Schebler Aviation Carburetors) by Precision Airmotive Corporation." The bulletin noted that reports from the field indicated that composite floats "may be absorbing fluid and sinking." It stated that Precision considered it was "mandatory" to replace the composite floats with metal floats "within the next 90 days or 25 hours of engine operation" if the aircraft was experiencing a flooding carburetor, rough engine or inconsistent engine shutdown. The bulletin provided information about metal float replacement kits which were available from local distributors. Finally, it noted that that an AD had been requested of the FAA. This bulletin was sent to aircraft repair stations and maintenance personnel and to Textron-Lycoming, manufacturer of the engine.

In September of 1991, the AD had not been issued and Precision wrote again to the FAA requesting the issuance of an AD requiring replacement of composite floats with metal floats in all Facet/Marvel-Schebler carburetors. The letter stated: "As the new manufacturer of the Facet/Marvel Schebler carburetor, Precision Airmotive feels very strongly that the composite floats constitute a significant safety of flight problem and must be removed from service." Randy Jenson, manager of engineering and product support for Precision met with a representative of the FAA regarding the Airworthiness Directive requested for replacement of the composite float and two other AD's requested by Precision.

Thereafter, in November of 1991, Precision sent out a new service bulletin package, with a revised Mandatory Service Bulletin number MSA-1, to all repair stations and maintenance personnel. This package included a cover letter informing the recipient that Precision was now the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the Marvel-Schebler carburetor, having purchased the product line from Facet. Revised Bulletin MSA-1 required that the Marvel-Schebler composite float be removed "immediately" and replaced with a metal float as per the instructions in the replacement kit.

The FAA once again declined to issue an Airworthiness Directive regarding the replacement of the composite float with a metal float. The FAA informed Precision in July of 1992 that after reviewing service difficulty records it had concluded that "there was not significant difference in the problems associated with the composite or metal floats and that regulatory action was not warranted at this time."

Vern Miller, the mechanic for the aircraft in question in this case, stated that he was aware of reports of composite floats absorbing fuel and sinking and that he had received the Mandatory Service Bulletins issued by Precision. However, when he conducted the annual inspection of the aircraft in September of 1994, just months before the accident, he did not inspect the carburetor to see if it had a metal or a composite float. He did not feel it was necessary to comply with the Mandatory Service Bulletins because he did not believe the bulletins constituted an ...