Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:07-CV-00886,4:07-CV-00886 |
| Parties | Jill SIKKELEE, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of David Sikkelee, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Clifford A. Rieders, Rieders Travis Humphrey Waters & Dohrmann, Williamsport, PA, David I. Katzman, Katzman Lampert & Stoll, PLLC, Rochester, MI, Bradley J. Stoll, Katzman, Lampert & Stoll, Wayne, PA, Bruce A. Lampert, Katzman Lampert & McClune, Broomfield, CO, Tejinder Singh, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Bethesda, MD, for Plaintiff.
Mary Z. Gaston, Sara E. Baynard-Cooke, Pro Hac Vice, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, William J. Conroy, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, P.C., Berwyn, PA, for Defendants Precision Airmotive Corporation, Precision Airmotive LLC.
Sara E. Baynard-Cooke, Pro Hac Vice, William Brendan Murphy, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, William J. Conroy, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, P.C., Berwyn, PA, for Defendant Burns International Services Corporation.
Catherine Slavin, Sara A. Frey, Gordon & Rees LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Patrick E. Bradley, Catherine E. Kiernan, Reed Smith LLP, Princeton, NJ, for Defendant Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division.
Catherine Slavin, Sara A. Frey, Gordon & Rees LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Patrick E. Bradley, Catherine E. Kiernan, Reed Smith LLP, Princeton, NJ, Christopher Carlsen, Deborah A. Elsasser, Clyde & Co. US LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Avco Corporation.
John E. Salmon, Zachary J. Ballard, Salmon, Ricchezza, Singer & Turchi, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Kelly Aerospace, Inc., Kelly Aerospace Power Systems, Inc.
John E. Salmon, Salmon, Ricchezza, Singer & Turchi, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Consolidated Fuel Systems, Inc.
In 2007, Jill Sikkelee filed a complaint related to the 2005 death of her husband, David Sikkelee; that complaint was subsequently twice amended, most recently in 2011.1 In the second amended complaint, Sikkelee alleges that David Sikkelee's private plane crashed after the screws holding the plane's MA-4SPA model carburetor's fuel bowl to its throttle body loosened, causing the engine to lose power. She alleges that Lycoming Engines ("Lycoming"), a subsidiary of Avco Corporation, designed, manufactured, and sold the engine that incorporated the allegedly defective carburetor. Sikkelee further alleges that Lycoming was aware of numerous problems and defects with the screws and locking mechanism that attached the carburetor halves together but failed to correct those issues and instead covered them up. Lycoming in turn argues that no mechanical issues contributed to the crash. Rather, it asserts that Mr. Sikkelee tried to climb in altitude too quickly to avoid mountains during takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall that caused the plane to lose lift and crash.
In 1969, Lycoming manufactured the engine installed on David Sikkelee's aircraft at the time of the accident. The engine underwent an overhaul in 2004, during which an overhauled model MA-4SPA carburetor was installed on the airplane. The carburetor was designed and manufactured by Marvel-Schebler and was overhauled by Kelly Aerospace ("Kelly"). Kelly holds a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) certificate2 and an FAA repair station certificate authorizing it to manufacture replacement parts, and to repair and overhaul carburetors independently of the engine manufacturer. During the 2004 carburetor overhaul, Kelly replaced a number of parts, including the fuel bowl screws, lock tab washers, and fuel bowl gasket. The carburetor also included a replacement throttle body and fuel bowl of unknown age, origin, and condition.3
In 2014, this Court granted Lycoming partial summary judgment on the ground that the FAA's issuance of a type certificate for the engine meant that the federal standard of care had been satisfied and Lycoming was not negligent or strictly liable.4 The Court denied summary judgment on Sikkelee's failure-to-warn claims, which were based on Lycoming's alleged violation of 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 due to its failure to "report any failure, malfunction, or defect in any product, part, process, or article" that Lycoming made.5
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that "field preemption does not apply to state-law aircraft products liability claims because (1) the Federal Aviation Act, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, and the regulations promulgated by the [FAA] reflect that Congress did not intend to preempt aircraft products liability claims in a categorical way; (2) Congress has not created a federal standard of care for persons injured by defective airplanes; and (3) the type certification process cannot as a categorical matter displace the need for compliance in this context with state standards of care."6 The Third Circuit thus held that "aircraft products liability cases like Sikkelee's may proceed using a state standard of care, subject to traditional principles of conflict preemption, including in connection with the specifications expressly set forth in a given type certificate."7
On remand, Lycoming again moved for summary judgment, asserting that Sikkelee's claims were subject to conflict preemption and would, in any event, fail under Pennsylvania law.8 This Court again granted summary judgment in Lycoming's favor, concluding that Sikkelee's claims were conflict-preempted and, even if they were not, Lycoming was entitled to summary judgment on Sikkelee's strict liability and negligence claims based on Pennsylvania law.9 Sikkelee again appealed, and the Third Circuit again reversed in part, holding that this 10
After the matter was again remanded to this Court, preparations for trial began, and Daubert motions were filed and ruled upon.11 The parties have now filed a number of motions in limine. Sikkelee has filed five motions in limine , including motions to preclude: (1) evidence of statistics and studies upon which Lycoming's expert witness Jeffrey Edwards relies in reaching his expert opinion; (2) evidence of propeller damage comparisons conducted by Lycoming's expert witness Leslie Doud; (3) certain statements made by an FAA inspector; (4) complaints about the airplane's prior maintenance—or lack thereof; and (5) evidence of claims that were previously resolved.12 Lycoming in turn has also filed five motions in limine , including motions to exclude: (1) evidence of service difficulty reports, service information records, warranty claims, and other lawsuits; (2) the expert testimony of Michael Thomson; (3) evidence of alleged carburetor defects that indisputably were not related to the accident; (4) evidence of subsequent remedial measures and other post-accident evidence; and (5) the untimely affidavit and deposition testimony of Emagene Maar.13
The parties have filed response and reply briefs, and the motions are ripe for disposition. After reviewing the briefs and evidence, as discussed below, some of the motions will be granted, while some will be denied.
Courts exercise discretion to rule in limine on evidentiary issues "in appropriate cases."14 While motions in limine may serve as a useful pretrial tool that enables more in-depth briefing than would be available at trial, a court may defer ruling on such motions "if the context of trial would provide clarity."15 "[M]otions in limine often present issues for which final decision is best reserved for a specific trial situation."16 Thus, certain motions, "especially ones that encompass broad classes of evidence, should generally be deferred until trial to allow for the resolution of questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice in proper context."17 Specifically, "pretrial Rule 403 exclusions should rarely be granted ... [as] a court cannot fairly ascertain the potential relevance of evidence for Rule 403 purposes until it has a full record relevant to the putatively objectionable evidence."18 Regardless, "in limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial."19
First, Sikkelee seeks to preclude Lycoming's expert, Jeffrey Edwards, from introducing evidence of statistics and studies that demonstrate that the majority of airplane accidents are caused by pilot error.20 Sikkelee argues that such evidence is irrelevant and, thus, inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.21 Specifically, Sikkelee contends that the prior accidents referenced in those statistics and studies are not substantially similar to the accident at issue here, and there is no way to examine the underlying data.22 She further asserts that the negligence of other pilots is not probative of what caused Mr. Sikkelee's crash and constitutes improper propensity evidence.23 Finally, Sikkelee argues that, regardless of whether the evidence is facially admissible, it should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, as any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.24
Lycoming responds that Edwards may testify regarding the facts and data that form the basis of his expert opinion, in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 703, as the studies and statistics are the type relied upon by experts in the field of aircraft accident reconstructions, and the probative value of...
To continue reading
Request your trial