Maguire v. Hughes Aircraft Corp., Civ. No. 87-4706 (CSF).

• Decision Date: 08 November 1989
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 87-4706 (CSF).
• Citation: 725 F. Supp. 821
• Parties: Edward J. MAGUIRE, III, Plaintiff, v. HUGHES AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

725 F. Supp. 821

Edward J. MAGUIRE, III, Plaintiff, v. HUGHES AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 87-4706 (CSF).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

November 8, 1989.

Steinberg, Ginsberg & Weitzman by Saul J. Steinberg, Paul F. Kulinski, Voorhees, N.J., for plaintiff.

Shanley & Fisher by Theodore S. Smith, Raymond M. Tierney, Jr., Morristown, N.J., for defendant Allison Gas Turbine Div. of Gen. Motors Corp.

Schwartz & Andolino by Wayne D. Greenfeder, Livingston, N.J., for defendant MPB Corp.

OPINION

CLARKSON S. FISHER, District Judge.

The court is called upon today to decide a motion for summary judgment brought by defendant Allison Gas Turbine Division of General Motors Corporation ("Allison") and a cross-motion for summary judgment brought by defendant MPB Corporation ("MPB") in the above-captioned matter. Plaintiff, Edward J. Maguire, III ("Maguire"), filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, on August 5, 1987, seeking damages for personal injuries which he allegedly sustained in a helicopter accident on August 14, 1984, and in a motorcycle accident four days later. The superior court complaint named Hughes Aircraft Corporation ("Hughes"), Allison and several fictitious aliases for additional defendants that were unidentified at the time of filing.

The case was removed to this court by Allison on November 20, 1987, based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. An unopposed motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of Hughes (which had come to be known as McDonnell Douglas Helicopter) on November 23, 1988. On February 7, 1989, Allison received permission of the court to file a third-party complaint against MPB, and filed same on February 17, 1989. On June 28, 1989, United States Magistrate Freda L. Wolfson granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint naming MPB as a direct defendant. Maguire filed such a complaint on July 21, 1989. The instant motions followed.

Facts

Maguire was piloting a helicopter on a solo night training mission for the New Jersey Army National Guard on August 14, 1984. The aircraft, which was powered by an engine manufactured by Allison which included bearings manufactured by MPB, suffered an apparent engine failure, so Maguire conducted a forced landing.

An emergency-room physician examined plaintiff the night of the incident, and an army flight surgeon examined him the following day. Two days later, the army flight surgeon returned Maguire to active flight status, determining that he was medically fit. On August 18, 1989, Maguire collided with a curb while operating a motorcycle, thereby suffering personal injuries. Plaintiff claims that he had suffered injuries from the forced landing of the helicopter which caused him to lose consciousness while operating the motorcycle, and therefore the helicopter engine failure was the proximate cause of any and all injuries he received in both the helicopter incident and the motorcycle accident.

The helicopter engine was developed by Allison under contract with the United States Army. Both the engine's design concept and its individual designed components were reviewed, evaluated and approved by the defense department. The inspection and testing of the engine and its components were also approved and witnessed by the defense department. (Plaintiff's Opposition Brief, Exhibit A, Army Investigation Report). There is evidence that the engine failure was caused by a defect in the design of the MPB bearing. (Allison's Appendix, Exhibit 10). This bearing was not part of the original engine design, but was incorporated later. The substitution was the result of an engineering change proposal, the purpose of which was to prolong the service life of the engine bearing. Defendants base their summary-judgment motions on the government contractor defense, which was clarified by the Supreme Court in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), reh. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1182, 103 L.Ed.2d 248 (1989).

Summary Judgment

The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate unnecessary trials which would cause needless expense and delay. Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment shall be granted:

if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The Rule directs the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Auth., 839 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir.1988).

The current standard for summary judgment requires that before judgment is entered as a matter of law, there be no "genuine" issue of "material" fact; however, the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties is an insufficient basis on which to deny a motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is "material" only if it will affect the outcome of a lawsuit under the applicable law, and a dispute over a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

The court is mindful that, in deciding a motion for summary judgment, it must construe the facts and inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pollock v. American Telephone & Telegraph Long Lines, 794 F.2d 860, 864 (3d Cir.1986).

Government Contractor Defense

The government contractor defense provides that

liability for design defects in military equipment cannot be imposed, pursuant to state law, on the manufacturer, when (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States.

Boyle, 108 S.Ct. at 2518. The Court reasoned that imposing liability on government contractors would have a direct effect on the terms of government contracts: either the contractor would raise the price it charged for the product, or it would decline to manufacture the product according to the government specifications. Id. at 2515.

The Court found that the defense for government contractors fits within the "discretionary function" exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).¹ The Court held that design selection for military equipment constitutes a discretionary function within the meaning of the FTCA exception. Boyle, 108 S.Ct. at 2517. The design selection process involves the evaluation of a whole host of military, technical and social considerations, including the balancing of safety concerns against the need for combat effectiveness. Id.

Maguire opposes defendants' motions on the grounds that summary judgment would violate the underlying policies of Boyle and that there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude application of the Boyle criteria to the instant action. Plaintiff contends that there is no evidence of significant government involvement in the decision to use the MPB bearing. He also asserts that the bearing did not conform to the design project specifications. Plaintiff further argues that there is no evidence which indicates that defendants warned the government of potential risks of the MPB bearing of which the defendants were aware, but the military were not.

Maguire concedes that the government may have participated actively in the original engine design. (Plaintiff's Opp. Brief at 14). It is his contention that this same level of participation was required for, but was missing from, the subsequent incorporation of the MPB bearing into the overall design. However, a court within this circuit has held that the first government contractor defense criterion is met by a showing of government approval of the overall design. It is not necessary that there be "continuous back and forth discussions ... regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the specific design deficiency alleged in the case." Wilson v. Boeing Co., 655 F.Supp. 766, 773 (E.D.Pa.1987).² Plaintiff's argument is incompatible with the Wilson holding.

Additionally, Maguire's assertion that there is no evidence of government involvement in the decision to change the bearing is inaccurate. Defendants have proffered evidence that the army was in full control of the process and was responsible for the determination to utilize the MPB bearing in the Allison engine. (See Supplemental Certification of Robert L. Jones). Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to indicate that the government was not actively involved in this decision-making process.

Maguire also argues that the bearing did not conform to specifications, because the Technical Data Report on the bearing change stated that the new bearing would have a B10 life of 1870 hours. (Allison's Appendix, Exhibit 5, 9th page). This means that ten percent of the MPB bearings are calculated to fail (theoretically) within 1870 hours of operation. (Affidavit of Robert L. Jones, ¶ 18). Since the engine failed following 711 hours of use after it was overhauled, (Allison's Appendix, Exhibit 10, p. 1), plaintiff argues that the bearing did not adhere to its specifications.

Defendants respond to this argument in several ways. First, they...