Decisions
Superior Helicopter Decision
Plaintiffs allege claims for strict products liability under ORS 30.900 et seq., negligence, breach of statutory duty, and post-sale duty to warn. Plaintiffs seek incidental and consequential damages, and statutory costs and disbursements.
> Download complete decision [PDF]
Compass Foods Dismissal
Owners and subrogated insurers of a Dassault, Falcon 900 business aircraft brought suit against Dassault and brake manufacturer Messier-Bugatti (sued under the name of its parent company SNECMA) for damages arising from a runway departure accident in Pinedale, Wyoming, 6 February 2001. SNECMA and Dassault moved to dismiss and, alternatively, to transfer the case to either New Jersey (owner’s domicile and place of sale) or Wyoming, the place of the accident. Plaintiffs’ primary reason for suit in Arkansas appears to have been Arkansas’ “minority approach” to the Economic Loss Doctrine. Arguably, Arkansas would allow the recovery for the purely commercial losses alleged by plaintiffs.
On 28 September 2005, the Eastern District of Arkansas granted SNECMA’s and Dassault’s motion to transfer this case to District Court of Wyoming. In so doing, the Arkansas federal court noted that no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Arkansas. As such, it seems unlikely that Arkansas law will be applied to this claim or that plaintiffs will be able to circumvent the Economic Loss Doctrine.
> Download complete decision [PDF]
National Transportation Safety Board Reconsideration
Summary of decision:
In February 6, 2001, about 2050 mountain standard time, a Dassault-Breguet Mystere Falcon 900 airplane, N59CF, departed from the left side of the runway during the landing roll at Pinedale Airport, Pinedale, Wyoming. The airplane sustained substantial damage.The Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the accident was the "loss of direction control due to a partial failure of the brake anti-skid system."
> Download complete decision [PDF]
Flight Attendent Spilled Hot Tea On Passenger - Defense Verdict
Plaintiff alleged that American Airlines, acting through its flight attendant, had negligently handed her a hot cup of tea onboard an international flight in such a way as to cause it to spill on her foot, causing second degree burns. American alleged that plaintiff had spilled the tea on herself some time after she had taken custody of it, as the flight attendant had moved onto serving other passengers before being notified of the spill. Jury awarded verdict in favor of defense.
> Download complete decision [JPEG]
Roberts v American Airlines
Plaintiff alleged that he had checked in on time and, upon arriving at the gate area, was informed by other passengers that the flight had been delayed. Plaintiff also alleged that the computerized departure information set forth on the video screens stated that boarding would begin at 8:00 PM. Mr. Roberts left the gate and returned at 7:55 PM, only to be denied boarding at that time because the flight was already departing. The flight was in fact departing rather than boarding at 8:00 PM.
Although American Airlines put Mr. Roberts on the next flight, Mr. Roberts was inconvenienced, had to get a hotel room for the night, and was forced to miss some appointments in New York the following day.
Plaintiff asserted two causes of action premised under New York tort law—that he is entitled to compensation because he was at the gate before 8:00 PM, and that he was caused emotional distress by the actions of American Airlines.
The court found the complaint based upon American’s boarding practices, which are services preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act. Moreover, the court also dismissed the cause of action regarding infliction of emotional distress for failure to state a claim as the allegations did not establish that the alleged negligence unreasonably threatened the plaintiff's safety or placed him in a "zone of danger."
> Download the complete decision [PDF]
