Olivia v. Airbus Ams., Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:19 CV 1701 |
| Parties | Ashley Olivia, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Airbus Americas, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon (1) plaintiff Ashley Olivia's (hereinafter "plaintiff") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 71); (2) defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72); and (3) Spirit Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Proffered Expert Witness, Anthony Micale (Doc. 73). This action arises from injuries plaintiff Ashley Olivia sustained while an airline passenger. For the reasons that follow, defendant's Motion to Exclude is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In addition, the Court DENIES defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint naming Spirit Airlines, Spirit Airlines, Inc., Airbus Americas, Inc. ("AAI"); Airbus; Lufthansa Technik Puerto Rico, LLC ("Lufthansa PR"); Lufthansa Technik; Lufthansa Technik, AG; Lufthansa Group; HAECO Americas; HAECO Group; Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company, Ltd.; Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company America, Ltd.; and Jason Sheppard as defendants. On June 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint ("Complaint"), adding Brice Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Brice") as a defendant. Thereafter, on July 25, 2019, AAI removed this matter to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
The Complaint contains five claims for relief. However, Count One, a claim for negligence, is the only claim which remains pending against moving defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc. ("Spirit Airlines").1
Written documentary evidence submitted to the Court establishes the following.2
Spirit Airlines owns an Airbus A320 aircraft ("the plane") with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") registration number N607NK. Spirit Airlines did not manufacture or design the seats on the plane. Each of the plane's seats has two legs, both of which fit into a seat track in the plane's floor. Each leg is attached to the seat track at two points, at the front and theback. The back attachment, or lug, is locked into the seat track. The front attachment/lug is not locked into the seat track and sits within the seat track's groove. The seat track has a protective cover over it.
In February 2017, Spirit Airlines sent the plane to Lufthansa PR, an FAA-certified repair station, for scheduled maintenance and a cabin reconfiguration. The scope of this work included the installation of an additional passenger compartment seat and a "detailed inspection of seat to floor attachment and general visual inspection of seats." This inspection included ensuring that the "seat attach fittings and the retainers are correctly installed" and "the seat tracks, the attach fittings, and the retainers are in the correct condition and have no corrosion." Lufthansa PR's technicians certified that this work was completed and that the plane was ready to be returned to service.
Donald Pierce, Spirit Airline's manager of aircraft maintenance in Las Vegas, testified that Spirit Airline's technicians conduct three-day and weekly checks of the airline's Airbus A320 aircraft. These weekly checks included oil servicing, oil checks, computer system checks, general visual inspections, and "general visuals of mostly all the parts of the aircraft exterior from the ground level, as well as cabin walk-throughs." These checks are done in accordance with the "overall maintenance package of the aircraft" set forth by Airbus. Inspections of the seats are part of these general visual inspections. Technicians will "visually check anything that would be outstanding, like tray tables, trim, any of those kind of items that the public would see." However, these general visual inspections do not include any checks of the seat tracks or the attachment of the seats to the floor of the plane.
Randy Howard, a former airframe and powerplant technician with Spirit Airlines,testified that the weekly checks of the Airbus A320 aircraft take several hours. During these weekly checks, the seats are visually inspected for "general condition" to ensure that "nothing safety-wise is wrong with" them. During this inspection, the seats are given a "gentle shake" to ensure they are attached to the floor. The bolts of the seat are not checked during this inspection.
On June 26, 2017, plaintiff boarded the plane at the McCarreen Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada. Jason Sheppard ("Sheppard") was also a passenger on the plane. According to plaintiff's deposition testimony, Sheppard sat in the seat directly in front of her ("the subject seat"). Once the plane began taxiing down the runway, the subject seat came down onto her left foot. Sheppard stood up so she could move her foot out from under the subject seat. Plaintiff noticed that the subject seat was "teetering" after this accident. The plane returned to the gate and paramedics boarded the plane in order to provide plaintiff with medical treatment. She was taken by ambulance to a hospital and sustained injuries to her left foot.
According to Sheppard's deposition testimony, he is six feet four inches and weighed at least 520 pounds at the time of the accident. Upon boarding the plane, Sheppard planned to sit in a "big seat" at the front of the plane, but was unable to do so because the seat was not compatible with a seatbelt extender. A flight attendant directed him to sit in a different seat, but did not tell him specifically which seat to sit in. Sheppard chose the subject seat, an aisle seat in Row 10. The subject seat did not appear wobbly to him when he sat down. Fifteen minutes after he sat down in the subject seat, he leaned back and put his leg out into the aisle. At that moment, he heard a "pop," the subject seat leaned down to the left, and he heard plaintiff cry out in pain.
Once the plane returned to the gate, Cody Hawes, a senior technician with Spirit Airlines, boarded the plane to inspect the subject seat. Hawes testified that the subject seat was notdamaged or broken. He stated that the left front lug of the seat was "out of the track" and "sitting on top of the track." Hawes testified that this issue was "immediately visible" upon inspection and he was able to quickly secure the subject seat. Hawes testified that he had never seen a front lug come out of the seat track before. He stated that it would be unsafe to fly the plane with the subject seat in this condition. Donald Pierce averred that the plane then flew on 455 flights prior to the accident, all without any issues with the subject seat.
On June 29, 2017, the plane's Row 10 seats were removed and replaced. This included the subject seat. Spirit Airlines then sent the subject seat to Airpac Enterprises, Inc. ("Airpac") for inspection. Airpac's "tear-down report" indicated that the subject seat contained no defects or damage, beyond some paint and cosmetics issues. Airpac returned the subject seat to Spirit Airlines with an FAA airworthiness approval tag. The subject seat is now back in use with Spirit Airlines and is operating normally.
This matter is now before the Court upon plaintiff and Spirit Airlines' Motions for Summary Judgment. Both Motions are opposed. In addition, defendant filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Proffered Expert Witness, Anthony Micale. Plaintiff opposes this Motion.
Summary Judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)); see also LaPointe v. UAW, Local 600, 8 F.3d 376, 378 (6th Cir. 1993). The burden of showing the absence of any such genuine issues of material facts rests with the moving party:
[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits," if any, which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). A fact is "material only if its resolution will affect the outcome of the lawsuit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Accordingly, the nonmoving party must present "significant probative evidence" to demonstrate that "there is [more than] some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir.1993). The nonmoving party may not simply rely on its pleading, but must "produce evidence that results in a conflict of material fact to be solved by a jury." Cox v. Kentucky Dep't. of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1995).
The evidence, all facts, and any inferences that may permissibly be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456 (1992). However, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
Summary judgment should be granted if a party who bears the burden of proof at trial does not establish an essential element of his case. Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937, 941 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). Moreover, if the evidence is "merely colorable" and not "significantly probative," the court may decide the legal issue and grant summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citation omitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial