Daniels v. Tew Mac Aero Services, Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1996
• Docket Number: Docket No. Y,No. 7659,7659
• Citation: 675 A.2d 984
• Parties: John F. DANIELS v. TEW MAC AERO SERVICES, INC. v. Fred STUART et al. DecisionLawor-95-127.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 984

675 A.2d 984

John F. DANIELS v. TEW MAC AERO SERVICES, INC. v. Fred STUART et al.

Decision No. 7659.

Law Docket No. Yor-95-127.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Feb. 5, 1996.

Decided May 10, 1996.

William C. Knowles (orally), Laurie Williamson, Verrill & Dana, Portland, for Plaintiff.

Barbara T. Schneider (orally), Murray, Plumb & Murray, John J. Wall, III (orally), William R. Fisher, Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel & Libby, Portland, for Defendants.

Before ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, and LIPEZ, JJ.

ROBERTS, Justice.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Tew Mac Aero Services, Inc., appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.) on the jury's verdict finding it negligent and awarding damages in the amount of $60,000 to John Daniels. The jury also found in favor of Fred Stuart and Limington-Harmon Airport on Tew Mac's third-party complaint. Tew Mac's principal contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by excluding from the trial all references to a National Transportation Safety Board (the safety board) factual report of the airplane crash that is the basis of this action. We vacate the judgment.

In 1989 Glenn Dyer purchased a Cessna 182K single engine airplane from Limington-Harmon Airport, paying a premium price for an overhauled engine. The airport sent the engine and carburetor to Tew Mac Aero Services in Massachusetts for an overhaul in November 1989. The overhauled engine and carburetor were returned to the Limington-Harmon Airport in January 1990 and installed by Fred Stuart, the airport's manager and mechanic, in March 1990. Shortly after the carburetor and engine were installed, Dyer and John Daniels, an experienced pilot, attempted to fly the plane. The purpose of the flight was to "break-in" the recently overhauled engine pursuant to engine specifications. The flight ended in a crash when the engine failed within minutes of takeoff.

Following the accident the plane was returned to the airport under the direction of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigators. Stuart, at the direction of the FAA investigators, attempted to start the engine. It would not start until the primer pump was used, and when the primer was not used the engine died. ¹ Stuart removed the carburetor from the plane and broke it down into two parts. Inside the carburetor the investigators found loose sand and dirt-like substances, as well as a caked-on rust-colored substance. Stuart testified at the trial that what was found inside the carburetor could not have gone through the fuel system because there are screens to filter out dirt and debris, and when he inspected the screens they were clean. Stuart agreed that it was important to check the screens for fuel contamination and that the presence of debris might suggest fuel contamination. Stuart concluded that the carburetor was defective. In a statement to the FAA after he had seen the carburetor taken apart, however, Stuart stated only that, with respect to the carburetor, he checked the needle valve and float seat and found no obvious defect. James Cobb, a licensed aircraft mechanic and pilot hired by Dyer to investigate the crash, also testified that there was no debris on the screens.

Tew Mac's theory of the case, which it offered to the jury chiefly through its expert, David Hessler, was that contamination within the fuel system led to the engine's failure. On cross-examination, counsel for Daniels raised and discussed the issue whether, if Hessler's theory was correct, one could expect to find debris on the screens.

Prior to the trial the court granted Daniels' and Limington-Harmon Airport's joint motion in limine to exclude "from admission in evidence or use at trial any part of the report of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration of the accident." Tew Mac was therefore not permitted to question Hessler with respect to the statement in the factual report that there was "minimal debris" found on the screens. The existence of any debris would have supported Tew Mac's theory that fuel contamination caused the crash. Tew Mac was also precluded from (1) questioning Hessler on the issue whether he relied on the report in reaching his conclusion, (2) pointing out to the jury the inconsistencies in the testimony of Stuart and Cobb and the factual report, and (3) questioning Stuart about the inconsistencies between his statement to the FAA that there were no obvious defects in the carburetor and his trial testimony that a defect in the carburetor caused the crash.

In their joint motion to exclude the entire safety board report, Daniels and the airport argued that a plain application of 49 U.S.C.A. § 1441(e) (West 1976) (repealed 1994) ² required exclusion of the entire report. Section 1141(e) provides:

No part of any report or reports of the National Transportation Safety Board relating to any accident or the investigation thereof, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report or reports.

Tew Mac contends that a narrow construction of section 1441(e) is necessary to effectuate the intent of Congress. Tew Mac argues that such a reading of the statute is consistent with the safety board's current practice of generating two reports, one factual and one probable cause, and that because the FAA and the safety board have complete control over plane crash wreckage following an accident, they often are in possession or control of the most probative, if not the only, evidence available. We review a trial court's interpretation of a statute for errors of law. Thibeault v. Larson, 666 A.2d 112, 114 (Me.1995). We first examine the plain meaning of the statutory language, seeking to give effect to the legislative intent. Id. In so doing, we remain mindful of the whole statutory scheme, of which the section at issue forms a part, so that a harmonious result may be achieved. Id. In addition, we accord great deference to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute administered by it. Centamore v. Department of Human Servs., 664 A.2d 369, 370-71 (Me.1995).

I.

The safety board's report in this case is comprised of two parts, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 835.2 (1995), which provides for the production of two reports, a board's accident report and a factual accident report. The board's accident report consists of "the Board's determinations, including the probable cause of an accident, issued ... in a computer format (briefs of accidents).... [N]o part of these reports may be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such reports." In the instant case, the safety board's brief of accident, or probable cause determination, constitutes two pages of the forty-page report. The board concluded that the probable cause of the accident was "fuel starvation, due to carburetor contamination." The remainder of the report excluded by the court contains the so-called factual accident report and consists of the first thirty-eight pages of the forty-page report. ³

The federal courts are in disagreement regarding the admissibility of the factual portions of the safety board's reports, as distinguished from the probable cause portions of those reports. The majority view supports the use of the factual reports, concluding that the purpose of the statutory bar is to prevent usurpation of the jury's role as the factfinder, a purpose fully served by excluding from evidence the opinions or conclusions regarding the probable cause of accidents. See Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp., 797 F.2d 845, 848 (10th Cir.1986). In Mullan, the circuit court held that the district court had not erred in allowing the plaintiff's expert to testify based in part on his review of safety board reports. Id. The court noted that the expert had relied only on the factual portions of the report, and refused to infer that he had impermissibly relied on the agency's probable cause determinations merely because his conclusions were the same as or similar to those of the agency. Id. See also Curry v. Chevron, USA, 779 F.2d 272, 274-75 (5th Cir.1985) (district court correctly allowed plaintiff's expert to testify as to his reliance on data in safety board report in reaching his own conclusion and in not allowing expert to testify that he relied on the probable cause determination); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 671 F.2d 810, 816 (4th Cir.1982) (district court properly excluded conclusory sections of report; parties did not challenge court's admission of factual portions of report); Keen v. Detroit Diesel Allison, 569 F.2d 547, 549-51 (10th Cir.1978) (analysis of federal circuit and district court interpretations leads to conclusion that "[t]he ... rule, which prohibits only conclusory opinions as to the ultimate issue of probable cause of the accident, seems more consistent with the policy considerations which prompted the enactment of 49 U.S.C. § 1441(e), namely, 'to guard against the introduction of [safety board] reports expressing agency views about matters which are within the functions of courts and juries to decide.' " (citations omitted)); McLeod v. ERA Aviation, Inc., No. CIV.A. 93-294, 1996 WL 109302, at * 1-* 2 (E.D.La. March 12, 1996) (in denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude factual portions of safety board report, court recognizes that purpose of statutory exclusionary rule is to prevent ursurpation of jury's role as factfinder, and purpose is served by excluding opinions, conclusory statements, or conclusions contained in the report); Petition of Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 821 F.Supp. 463, 464 (E.D.Mich.1992) (recognizing "judicial gloss" of other federal courts and holding that factual contents of safety board reports are admissible in evidence); Budden v. United States, 748 F.Supp. 1374, 1376-77 (D.Neb.1990), vacated on other grounds 963 F.2d 188 (...