Wagner v. Flightcraft, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 8521-2-I,8521-2-I |
| Citation | 643 P.2d 906,31 Wn.App. 558 |
| Parties | Steve WAGNER, Respondent, v. FLIGHTCRAFT, INC.; and Marvel-Schebler/Tillotson, a Division of Borg-Warner Corp., Appellants, Beech Aircraft Corporation; and Gross Aviation, Inc., Defendants. Dorothy WALTHERS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of David R. Walthers, Deceased, Respondent, v. FLIGHTCRAFT, INC.; and Marvel-Schebler/Tillotson, a Division of Borg-Warner Corp., Appellants, Beech Aircraft Corporation, Defendant. John P. KALBRENER, Respondent, v. FLIGHTCRAFT, INC.; and Marvel-Schebler/Tillotson, a Division of Borg-Warner Corp., Gross Aviation, Inc.; The Estate of David Walthers; John Doe Gross and Jane Doe Gross, husband and wife; and Lycoming Engine Corp., Defendants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Keith Gerrard, Seattle, for Beech Aircraft Corp.
In these consolidated cases, Marvel-Schebler/Tillotson (Marvel-Schebler) and Flightcraft, Inc. (Flightcraft) appeal from a judgment entered on verdicts returned in favor of all plaintiffs and against both appellants totalling $3,850,000 for damages sustained in the crash of a single engine aircraft.
Plaintiffs Steve Wagner and John P. Kalbrener survived the crash and were awarded $1,300,000 and $1,800,000 respectively. 1 David R. Walthers, the pilot of the aircraft was killed in the crash. His personal representative brought a survival action and was awarded $750,000.
On this appeal, there are eight issues which we must consider. Marvel-Schebler alleges (1) that the trial court should have granted its motion for summary judgment, (2) that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the MA4SPA carburetor it manufactured was not reasonably safe, and (3) that the trial court erred in refusing to submit Marvel-Schebler's additional proposed jury instructions on product liability of a manufacturer. Flightcraft alleges (4) that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider Flightcraft's liability under a product liability theory because Flightcraft only acted as a repairer. Both Marvel-Schebler and Flightcraft allege (5) that the trial court allowed an incorrect measure of damages in the survival action brought by the Walthers' estate, (6) that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of alleged pilot error by Walthers in responding to the emergency created by engine trouble, (7) that there was no substantial evidence to allow the jury to award Wagner damages for lost future earnings, and (8) that the jury awards were excessive.
From the testimony presented during just over 2 months of trial, the jury was entitled to find that on November 19, 1975, David Walthers, John Kalbrener, and Steve Wagner were flying in a Beech Musketeer airplane owned by Gross Aviation. Walthers was working for Gross Aviation as a pilot instructor. That day he was instructing Kalbrener, a licensed pilot working for a commercial pilot rating. Wagner, a photographer friend of Kalbrener, was a passenger. Just seconds after they took off to the north from the Port Orchard Airport, the airplane experienced engine trouble. The plane had just started to turn to the left at an altitude of 200 to 400 feet when the engine stopped and never restarted. Someone in the plane immediately radioed Walthers, Kalbrener, and Wagner decided to land in a gravel pit just northwest of the runway because they felt they could reach neither the runway nor the water of Puget Sound. They also felt landing in trees near the airport would mean certain death. Walthers flew the plane toward the gravel pit where the plane crashlanded. Walthers was killed instantly on impact. Kalbrener suffered head, leg, and ankle injuries and lost an eye. Wagner received head, back, and ankle injuries.
George Seidlein of the National Transportation Safety Board and Maurice Donaldson of Beech Aircraft investigated the crash. They found the needle valve inside the plane's carburetor jammed in a closed position. At trial, Donaldson opined that the jammed needle valve blocked the fuel supply, causing the engine to stop. During the crash investigation, Donaldson and Seidlein could not find the carburetor's positive retraction clip which would have kept the needle valve open to allow fuel to reach the engine. They also found no evidence of wearing in the carburetor, indicating the positive retraction clip had not been installed. To be airworthy and safe, an aircraft carburetor must contain a positive retraction clip, required by the FAA since 1964.
The MA4SPA model carburetor on this plane was designed and manufactured by Marvel-Schebler. This carburetor was originally made in 1966 and included a positive retraction clip. Flightcraft overhauled the carburetor on May 17, 1971. Flightcraft's overhaul included the sale and installation of a Marvel-Schebler carburetor kit. Flightcraft certified the carburetor was repaired and safe for use. Gross Aviation installed the carburetor on the Beech Musketeer in May of 1973. From the time of overhaul by Flightcraft until the crash, no one had done anything to the carburetor except to install it on the airplane.
This Marvel-Schebler carburetor utilized a separate positive retraction clip which attached to connect the float lever arm to the needle valve. With this separate piece positive retraction clip design, there was no way to test a sealed carburetor to determine if the positive retraction clip was properly installed. In 1901, Marvel-Schebler designed a one-piece integrated float lever arm including a positive retraction tab. For this unit, Marvel-Schebler developed a test to determine proper installation of the positive retraction tab. Marvel-Schebler chose to manufacture the cheaper separate positive retraction clip. It estimated the separate clip cost about $1.40 to $2.00, while redesigning and retooling for the one-piece design would make each unit cost $6 to $14.
The plaintiffs alleged Marvel-Schebler was negligent and strictly liable for a manufacturing defect, a design defect, and/or inadequate overhaul instructions. The jury found Marvel-Schebler strictly liable but not negligent. The plaintiffs alleged Flightcraft was negligent and strictly liable for its defective carburetor overhaul. The jury found Flightcraft both negligent and strictly liable.
Marvel-Schebler initially alleges that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for summary judgment. It primarily bases its claim of error on the failure of the plaintiff to produce expert testimony that the carburetor was not reasonably safe.
A trial court should grant a motion for summary judgment only if reasonable people could reach but one conclusion from all the evidence. Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 91 Wash.2d 345, 349, 588 P.2d 1346 (1979). Marvel-Schebler, the moving party, had the burden to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact while all reasonable inferences were resolved against the moving party. Lamon, supra at 349, 588 P.2d 1346. The trial court considered all pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file. Barrie v. Hosts of America, 94 Wash.2d 640, 642, 618 P.2d 96 (1980).
In this case despite some minor procedural irregularities by the plaintiffs, summary judgment was not warranted for Marvel-Schebler because different inferences could be drawn from evidentiary facts to find the ultimate facts of negligence and a not reasonably safe product. See Preston v. Duncan, 55 Wash.2d 678, 681-82, 349 P.2d 605 (1960). After reviewing the extensive materials, we find clear inferences that Marvel-Schebler might have been negligent and produced a not reasonably safe carburetor from, among others, the depositions of the crash investigators (Seidlein and Donaldson), Flightcraft's mechanic (Chandler Larson) who overhauled the carburetor, and Marvel-Schebler's employees. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Marvel-Schebler's motion for summary judgment.
Marvel-Schebler also alleges there was not sufficient evidence to show the carburetor was not reasonably safe. Thus, Marvel-Schebler asserts that the trial court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Again, it bases its argument on the failure of the plaintiffs to produce expert testimony which stated definitively that the carburetor was not reasonably safe.
Washington's test for product defect as announced in Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wash.2d 145, 542 P.2d 774 (1975), creates a consumer-oriented standard based on the reasonable expectations of the ordinary user of a product. Under this standard, a product is not reasonably safe when that product is unsafe to an extent beyond that which an ordinary consumer would reasonably contemplate. Thus, the trier of fact in a product liability case in Washington must judge a product by the reasonable expectations of the ordinary user of that product.
For the present case, we agree that the jury as trier of fact needed expert testimony to understand fully the alleged design defect of the Marvel-Schebler carburetor. See Potter v. Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 19 Wash.App. 746, 757, 578 P.2d 859 (1978); Lynd v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 276 Or. 341, 349, 554 P.2d 1000 (1976). But the jury received sufficient expert testimony to explain the workings of the carburetor and its alleged design defect through such experts as George Seidlein, Maurice Donaldson, George Wells, Donald Graham, and Robert Massey. Through such testimony, the jury considered the relevant factors about the MA4SPA model carburetor design such as the product's utility, safety...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider Nat., Inc. v. Holland Hitch Co.
...the owners of a single engine aircraft that crashed killing the pilot and injuring two occupants. See Wagner v. Flightcraft, Inc., 31 Wash.App. 558, 643 P.2d 906, 909 (1982) (Wagner I ) (summarizing facts). A defective carburetor design and defective repair work caused the crash. Id., 643 P......
-
Wehner v. Weinstein
...A.2d 166 (1972); Flagtwet v. Smith, 393 N.W.2d 452 (S.D.1986); Wallace v. Couch, 642 S.W.2d 141 (Tenn.1982); Wagner v. Flightcraft, Inc., 31 Wash.App. 558, 643 P.2d 906 (1982).The defendants also cite a number of federal cases, however, most of those dealt with wrongful death claims under t......
-
U.S. v. Bedonie
...personal maintenance, from the time of death through the decedent's estimated lifetime employment period"); Wagner v. Flightcraft, Inc., 31 Wash.App. 558, 643 P.2d 906, 912 (1982) (holding correct measure of damages in survival action for unmarried decedent with no dependents was "future ne......
-
Pagnotta v. Beall Trailers of Oregon, Inc.
...of the alleged dangerous condition in a products liability case." Bruns, 77 Wash.App. at 210,890 P.2d 469 (citing Wagner v. Flightcraft, Inc., 31 Wash.App. 558, 643 P.2d 906,review denied, 97 Wash.2d 1037 (1982)). But a close reading of Bruns shows it is distinguishable because this comment......
-
Preparing for Trial and Appeal
...158 (10th Cir. 1973); Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Gaines , 652 S.W. 2d 600 (Tex. Civ. App. 1983); see also Wagner v. Flight Craft, Inc. , 643 P.2d 906 (Wash. 1982); Allen v. Bonnar , 125 N.W. 2d 570 (Wis. 1964) (three-year-old boy); Allers v. Willis , 643 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1982) (manual labo......
-
The Design Defect Test in Washington: the Requisite Balance
...v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 91 Wash. 2d 345, 351, 588 P.2d 1346, 1349-50 (1979); Wagner v. Flightcraft, Inc., 31 Wash. App. 558, 565, 643 P.2d 906, 910-11 (1982); Bernal v. American Honda Motor Co., 87 Wash. 2d 406, 411, 553 P.2d 107, 110 57. See Wade, On the Nature of Strict Tort Liability......