Morris v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 3:05–cv–0015–M.,3:05–cv–0015–M.
• Parties: John David MORRIS, Steven Joseph Fleck, Rose Morris, and Diane Marie Fleck, Plaintiffs, v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

833 F.Supp.2d 622

John David MORRIS, Steven Joseph Fleck, Rose Morris, and Diane Marie Fleck, Plaintiffs,

v.CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 3:05–cv–0015–M.

United States District Court,

N.D. Texas,

Dallas Division.

Dec. 1, 2011.

Jerome L. Skinner, Donald J. Nolan, Mollie E. O'Brien, Sara E. Spratt, Thomas P. Routh, Nolan Law Group, Chicago, IL, Robert R. Bodoin, Bodoin, Agnew, Greene & Maxwell, PC, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Fred J. Meier, Jr., Christopher S. Kilgore, Carstens & Cahoon, LLP, John J. Reenan, Winstead, PC, Jonathan Jay Cunningham, Shamoun & Norman, LLP, Dallas, TX, Don G. Rushing, William D. Janicki, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BARBARA M. G. LYNN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Cessna Aircraft Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry # 66]. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2003, a Cessna C208B model aircraft crashed near San Angelo, Texas, injuring the plane's two occupants, Plaintiffs John David Morris and Steven Joseph Fleck. The plane was owned by Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) and was being operated by Baron Aviation Services, a FedEx “feeder operation” that employed Fleck and Morris as pilots. Morris and Fleck were conducting a “check ride,” which is a test that pilots of air carriers must complete annually to maintain their flight status. See14 C.F.R. 135.293(b) (2010). Fleck was acting in his capacity as a “check pilot”—a pilot authorized by the FAA to evaluate and determine pilot competence—and was observing and evaluating Morris's operation of the plane through several maneuvers. The crash occurred shortly after Morris attempted to complete a simulated engine failure maneuver.

On January 4, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court, asserting common law claims for products liability based on strict liability and negligence, and breach of warranty, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. (Compl. 3–7, ECF No. 1.) On December 19, 2005, this case was transferred by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the District of Kansas (the “MDL Court”) for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. (Transfer Order, ECF No. 15.) On March 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in the MDL court, asserting the same claims alleged in the original Complaint, and adding a common law fraud claim. (Am. Compl., In re Cessna 208 Series Aircraft Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:05–md–01721–KHV (D.Kan. Apr. 12, 2007), ECF No. 189.) On April 22, 2010, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the case to this Court.

Neither the Original nor the Amended Complaint provides much detail about Plaintiffs' products liability claims. Plaintiffs' strict liability allegations generally assert that the C208B was “defective, not fit for its intended purposes and unreasonably dangerous by reason of defective design, manufacture, assembly, inspection, testing, warning, instruction, sale, service, repair and/or maintenance.” (Am. Compl. 3.) As for Plaintiffs' negligence-based products claim, the Amended Complaint alleges that Cessna breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, assembly, sale, and/or distribution of the aircraft, and also breached additional duties, imposed by federal regulations, concerning design, manufacture, testing, instructions for use, and warnings. (Am. Compl. 4–5.)

Notwithstanding these general allegations, the parties' briefing on Cessna's Motion for Summary Judgment reveals that Plaintiffs' allegations principally concern the C208B's capacity to operate in “icing conditions”; that is, conditions conducive to the accumulation of ice on the exterior surfaces of the aircraft, which can adversely affect the aircraft's performance. Plaintiffs' common law fraud claims assert that Cessna misrepresented the C208B's performance capabilities in icing conditions.

On June 20, 2011, Cessna filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law on all of Plaintiffs' claims.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party, then there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Gates v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 417 (5th Cir.2008) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Lynch Props., Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co., 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir.1998). Once the movant carries its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show that summary judgment is inappropriate, by designating specific facts beyond the pleadings that prove the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505;Fields v. City of S. Hous., 922 F.2d 1183, 1187 (5th Cir.1991). In determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, “factual controversies are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, but only if both parties have introduced evidence showing that a controversy exists.” Lynch Props., 140 F.3d at 625 (citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

Cessna seeks summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. Cessna argues that the Federal Aviation Act (FAAct) of 1958 preempts the standard of care for Plaintiffs' products liability claims, and that the federal standard of care is defined by, and satisfied through compliance with, federal regulatory standards for aircraft design and performance. Similarly, Cessna argues that as a matter of law, its compliance with such standards precludes Plaintiffs from recovering punitive damages. Cessna further argues that Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to Plaintiffs' fraud claim. Finally, Cessna seeks summary judgment on its affirmative defense of joint enterprise, by which it asserts that there is no dispute of fact that Morris and Fleck were engaged in a joint enterprise during the check flight, and that the negligence of one is imputed to the other.

A. Products Liability Claims—Preemption

The “ultimate touchstone” in any preemption case is congressional intent. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 1194, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009). Congressional intent to preempt state law may be explicit in statutory provisions, or it may be implied. Witty v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 366 F.3d 380, 384 (5th Cir.2004). Here, Cessna does not argue that Plaintiffs' products liability claims are expressly preempted by the FAAct, but rather that the FAAct impliedly preempts the standard of care applicable to state law products liability claims.

The FAAct was enacted in the wake of several high-profile accidents, with the express purpose of “establish[ing] a new federal agency with powers adequate to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by both civil and military operations.” H.R.Rep. No. 85–2360 at 1 (1958), 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3741, 3741. The Act created the Federal Aviation Agency, which became the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and imbued it with regulatory authority over several aspects of the aviation industry. Particularly relevant to this case is the FAAct's requirement that the FAA Administrator “shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing ... minimum standards required in the interest of safety ... for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers.” 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(1) (2006). Furthermore, the Act establishes a three-phase process for approving and certifying the safety of an aircraft's design, manufacturing process, and operation. Id. § 44704. The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently explained this process as follows:

Prior to manufacturing a new aircraft, a manufacturer must receive a “type certificate” indicating the FAA's approval of a plane's basic design and ensuring that the design complies with all applicable FAA regulations. See49 U.S.C. § 44704(a); 14 C.F.R. § 21.21. Next, a manufacturer must obtain a “production certificate,” which indicates that the FAA approves of the manufacturing process that will be used to construct the approved design. See49 U.S.C. § 44704(b); 14 C.F.R. §§ 21.139, 21.143. Finally, before a plane can be put into service, the owner of the aircraft must obtain an “airworthiness certificate” to prove the aircraft is in a safe operating condition and conforms to the type certificate. 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c); 14 C.F.R. § 21.183.

Monroe v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 417 F.Supp.2d 824, 833 (E.D.Tex.2006). Much of Cessna's preemption argument relies on the extensiveness of this certification regime, and Cessna's compliance with it.

The FAAct contains a savings clause that, when originally enacted, stated, “Nothing contained in this Act shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this Act are in addition to such remedies.” Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub.L. No. 85–726, § 1106, 72 Stat. 731, 798 (current version at 49 U.S.C. § 40120(c) (“A remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.”)).¹ Although the FAAct did not originally contain an express preemption provision, when Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) of 1978, it added a provision that expressly preempts state and local “law[s], regulation[s], or other provision[s]...