Williams v. Avco Corp.
| Docket Number | PC-2015-4900 |
| Decision Date | 28 November 2023 |
| Parties | CAROL WILLIAMS, Individually, and for and on Behalf of the Estate and the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Anthony David Williams, Deceased; and WILLIAM GREGORY YOUNG and DEBRA ANNE THIGPEN, Individually, and for and on Behalf of the Estate and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of William Clayton Young, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AVCO CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
For Plaintiff: Stephen E. Breggia, Esq.
For Defendant: John A. Tarantino, Esq. Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq. Daniel J. Procaccini, Esq.
Plaintiffs Carol Williams, individually, and for and on behalf of the estate and the wrongful death beneficiaries of Anthony David Williams, deceased, and William Gregory Young and Debra Anne Thigpen, individually, and for and on behalf of the estate and wrongful death beneficiaries of William Clayton Young deceased (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) have sued Defendant Avco Corporation (referred to as Avco or Lycoming) as a result of a tragic airplane accident which resulted in the deaths of Messrs. Williams and Young. Avco moves for partial summary judgment contending that certain of Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the eighteen-year statute of repose established by the General Aviation Revitalization Act, Pub. L. No. 103-298, 108 Stat. 1552 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 40101) (GARA).
Plaintiffs object to Avco's motion. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted.
On November 13, 2012, Anthony David Williams, William Clayton Young, and John Tilton, Jr. (Decedents) boarded a Piper PA-32-300 Cherokee 6 Aircraft (Aircraft) at Hawkins Field in Jackson, Mississippi to attend a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety seminar in Raymond, Mississippi. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 2 (NTSB Factual Report), at 1-3.) Prior to departure, the Aircraft exited its hanger, fuel was added to its main fuel tanks, and a pre-flight inspection was performed. Id. at 1. Shortly after takeoff, Air Traffic Control (ATC) received a message indicating that Decedents were experiencing some engine difficulties and were returning to Hawkins Field. Id. at 1a. The Aircraft crashed. Id. at 1b. It came to rest upside down on a house, approximately 0.8 nautical miles south of the departure end of Runway 16 in Jackson, Mississippi and erupted into flames and smoke. Id. As a result Decedents were fatally injured due to the "inhalation of products of combustion." Id.
Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint[1] on November 6, 2015 advancing claims for Strict Liability (Count I), Negligence (Count II), Breach of Express and Implied Warranties (Count III), and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count IV). See Complaint (Compl.) Avco answered and asserted GARA as a defense. See Defendant's Answer (Def.'s Answer.) On May 29, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted an Amended Complaint indicating that they intended to rely on exceptions set forth in GARA.[2] See Amended Complaint (Am. Compl.)
On July 8, 2021, this Court decided two discovery motions, one filed by each party. Williams v. Avco Corp., No. PC-2015-4900, 2021 WL 2946198 (R.I. Super. July 8, 2021). This Court held that the Fraud Exception of GARA did not apply because Plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts that show Avco knowingly misrepresented, concealed, or withheld any information from the FAA. Id. at *6. However, this Court noted that Plaintiffs' investigation of the accident identified four components (e.g., the plunger in the flow divider of the fuel system, the lack of an overboard line, the fuel servo bellows, and exhaust valves of cylinders four and six) of the engine that could have contributed to its failure. Id. at *3. Therefore, this Court held that, to the extent that Plaintiffs have identified specific parts that allegedly caused the accident, Plaintiffs should be allowed to conduct discovery to determine whether those parts fall under GARA's Rolling Provision which will be described below. Id. at *7.
The parties engaged in fact discovery, and Avco now moves for partial summary judgment on all counts of the Amended Complaint to the extent their theories of liability are premised on (a) a cracked fuel servo bellows, (b) a loose plunger in the flow divider, and (c) a lack of an overboard line.[3] (Def.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (Def.'s Mem.) 1.) This Court heard arguments on November 14 and 15, 2023. During argument, Plaintiffs conceded that the fuel servo bellows were not causative of the accident. Therefore, the only issues left for this Court to address relate to the flow divider of the fuel system and the lack of an overboard line.
A
The Aircraft was powered by a single Lycoming IO-540-K1A5 engine (the Engine) which was designed by Avco in the late 1960s and approved by the FAA on March 21, 1966. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 8 (Production Certificate).) Avco manufactured and shipped the Engine to Piper Aircraft Corporation (Piper) in Florida on October 5, 1972. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 9 (Engine Record).) Subsequently, Piper installed the Engine on a Piper PA 32-300 Cherokee Six and put it into service. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 10 (Aircraft Logbook #2), at P001084.) In May 2009, Superior Pallet Co. purchased the Aircraft. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 3 (Latham Dep.), at 24:12-20, Oct. 15, 2021.)
A flow divider sits on top of the Engine and distributes metered fuel to each of the six cylinders. (Pls.' Opp'n Ex. A (Rupert Dep.), at 111:1-4, Sept. 18, 2023.) It consists of a valve body and several internal sub-components including a plunger valve, a spring, and a flexible diaphragm. See id. at 111-13.
According to the Aircraft's engine logbook, the Engine was first overhauled in 1983 by Florida Aircraft Engines. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 11 (Engine Logbook #1), at P000717-720.) An engine overhaul consists of deconstructing the current engine by an authorized facility that can inspect, test, and repair the engine as necessary. (Rupert Dep. at 63:7-14.) As part of the overhaul, the flow divider was sent to Quality Aircraft Carburetors, Inc. (Quality Aircraft). (Engine Logbook #1 at P000777.) Quality Aircraft's service tag indicated the flow divider's manufacturer as Bendix and recorded its serial number as 961N. Id.
In 2004, Mena Aircraft Engines, Inc. (Mena Aircraft Engines) overhauled the flow divider. Mena Aircraft Engines outsourced the work on the flow divider to Mike's Aircraft Fuel Metering Service (Mike's Fuel Metering). (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 16 (Mike's Fuel Metering Work Order), at P006553, P006566-67.) Mike's Fuel Metering's service tag also indicated the flow divider's manufacturer as Bendix and recorded its serial number as 961N. Id. During the overhaul, Mike's Fuel Metering replaced the flow divider's diaphragm. See id.; see also Def.'s Mem. at 9.
"Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously." Cruz v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 66 A.3d 446, 451 (R.I. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). "[S]ummary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Court determines that there are no issues of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Quest Diagnostics, LLC v. Pinnacle Consortium of Higher Education, 93 A.3d 949, 951 (R.I. 2014) (internal quotations omitted); see Super. R. Civ. P. 56. The moving party "bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact." McGovern v. Bank of America, N.A., 91 A.3d 853, 858 (R.I. 2014) (citation omitted). Then the burden shifts and, as reiterated by the Rhode Island Supreme Court recently:
Henry v. Media General Operations, Inc., 254 A.3d 822, 834 (R.I. 2021) (cleaned up, citations omitted).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court "views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party[,]" Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 532 (R.I. 2013), and "does not pass upon the weight or the credibility of the evidence[.]" Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Association, 603 A.2d 317, 320 (R.I. 1992).
In 1994, Congress passed GARA in response to the "deterioration in aircraft manufacturing" and the "concomitant loss of jobs" in the general aviation industry. Scott David Smith, The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994: The Initial Necessity for Outright Success of, and Continued Need for the Act to Maintain American General Aviation Predominance Throughout the World, 34 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 75, 77 (2009). An examination of the legislative history confirms that GARA was enacted to address issues arising from the substantial increase in successful product liability claims imposed on manufacturers of general aviation aircraft. Lyon v Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2001) as amended (July 9, 2001) (citation to legislative history omitted). Congress believed that "manufacturers were being driven to the wall because, among other things, of the long tail of liability attached to those aircraft[s], which could be used for decades after they were first manufactured and sold." Id. Therefore, GARA was designed to strike a fair balance between potential plaintiffs in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial