United States: Recent Developments In Aviation And Space Law

Co-authored by Marissa N. Lefland

This paper provides an overview of important developments in aviation and space law from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. We selected some of the most significant cases in the areas of federal preemption; forum non conveniens; international treaties, including the Montreal Convention and EU 261; and federal jurisdiction.


A. Federal Aviation Act

Whether and to what extent the Federal Aviation Act (FAAct),1 and the regulations promulgated pursuant to it, preempt state law has recently been addressed by courts in the Third and Ninth Circuits.

1. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

In Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., the Third Circuit reversed the holding of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which granted partial summary judgment in favor of the appellant engine manufacturer Lycoming on the grounds that the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) preempt aircraft design and manufacturing claims.2

The case arose out of a 2005 accident wherein the plaintiff claimed that an aircraft, piloted by her husband, crashed as a result of a defect in the engine's carburetor.3 The plaintiff filed suit against seventeen defendants, including the engine manufacturer, asserting numerous state tort law causes of action.4 The district court, relying on the Third Circuit's holding in Abdullah v American Airlines, Inc.,5 held that the plaintiff 's state law claims, which were based on state law standards of care, were preempted by the FAAct, which exclusively occupied the "field of air safety."6 The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint and asserted state law causes of action premised on federal standards of care, i.e. violations of the FARs.7

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Lycoming and held that "the federal standard care was established in the type certificate itself." As a result, and because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had issued a type certificate for the engine at issue, the court concluded that "the federal standard of care had been satisfied as a matter of law."8

The Third Circuit granted interlocutory review of the district court's decision because the district court's order "raised novel and complex questions concerning the reach of Abdullah and the scope of preemption in the airlines industry."9 The issue, as framed by the court, was to determine the extent to which the FAAct preempts state law product liability design defect claims.10 The court held that products liability claims are not preempted by federal law and such claims "may proceed using a state standard of care."11

In reaching its decision, the court first determined that Abdullah "does not govern product liability claims" because the scope of the "field of aviation safety" preemption addressed in that case was limited to "in-air operations."12 The court further found that the catch-all federal standard of care discussed in Abdullah does not apply to product liability claims.13 As a result, the FAAct preempts state standards of care only with respect to "in-air operations," but it does not preempt state standards of care that govern the design or manufacture of aircraft.14

Next, and consistent with its prior holding in Elassaad v. Independent Air, Inc.,15 the court concluded that the presumption against preemption applies to aviation product liability claims because these claims have traditionally and consistently been governed by state law.16 "With that presumption in mind," the court reviewed the FAAct, and the regulations promulgated pursuant to it, and concluded that Congress did not express a "clear and manifest intent to preempt aviation products liability claims."17

The court found that it was "significant" that the FAAct contains no express preemption provision and instead only establishes "minimum standards" for aviation safety.18 The court also noted that the FAAct's savings clause appears to contemplate that the states would continue to exercise regulatory power over certain aspects of aviation.19

Similarly, the FARs contain no indication of a congressional intent to preempt state products liability law.20 The court distinguished the regulations at issue from those addressed in Abdullah, noting that the regulations governing "in-flight operations" are comprehensive and specifically prescribe rules governing the operation of aircraft. The regulations thus establish a general standard of care, whereas design and manufacturing regulations do not govern "manufacture generally" and only "establish procedures for manufacturers to obtain certain approvals and certificates from the FAA."21 Further, the court concluded that "Congress has not created a federal standard of care for persons injured by defective airplanes; and the type certification process cannot as a categorical matter displace the need for compliance in this context with state standards of care."22

The court also found that the General Aviation Revitalization Act's (GARA) statute of repose would be superfluous if state law aviation products liability claims were automatically preempted.23 GARA's text and legislative history makes clear that congressional intent was to preserve state law products liability claims.24

Last, the court held that the issuance of a type certificate does not "foreclose all design defect claims" and that "state tort suits using state standards of care may proceed subject only to traditional conflict preemption principles."25 In so holding, the court recognized that there may be situations where it is impossible for a manufacturer to comply with both the type certificate specifications and a duty imposed by state law. In those cases, the state law would be conflict preempted.26 The court declined to decide whether the plaintiff 's claims were subject to conflict preemption, leaving that issue for the district court to decide on remand.27

2. Escobar v. Nevada Helicopter Leasing, LLC

In Escobar v. Nevada Helicopter Leasing, LLC, following the crash of a Eurocopter EC130 B4 helicopter into mountainous terrain, the plaintiff, whose husband piloted the accident aircraft, asserted state law causes of action for negligence and strict liability against both the aircraft owner and the manufacturer.28 The aircraft owner29 filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff 's state law tort claims against it were preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 44112, a provision of the FAAct that limits the liability of aircraft lessors, owners, and secured parties for personal injury, death, or property loss on land or water when they are not "in the actual possession or control" of the aircraft at the time of the accident.30

The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii analyzed the applicability of both express and implied preemption to the plaintiff 's claims.31 The court dismissed express preemption, noting that the FAAct does not contain an express preemption clause.32 The court then discussed implied preemption and its two subsets: field preemption and conflict preemption. The court determined that field preemption was inapplicable.33 After reviewing the legislative history of the statute, the court concluded that conflict preemption was at issue because the state causes of action asserted by the plaintiff "interfere with the intent of Congress in enacting 49 U.S.C. § 44112 of the FAAct" to shield aircraft owners, lessors, and secured parties that did not exercise actual possession or control of the aircraft from liability.34 In reaching its decision, the court dismissed the decisions of several state law courts that have found conflict preemption to be inapplicable to state law causes of action filed by crewmembers and passengers,35 noting that the holdings in those cases were "inconsistent with the legislative history of 49 U.S.C. § 44112 and contrary to the holdings of the majority of courts who have considered the issue."36

To read this Paper in full, please click here.


1. 49 U.S.C. § 40120(c).

2. 822 F.3d 680, 683 (3d Cir. 2016).

3. Id. at 685.

4. Id.

5. 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999).

6. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 685–86 (3d Cir. 2016). Only two claims remained against Lycoming, the sole defendant: defective design and failure to warn. Id. at 685–86.

7. Sikkelee, 822 F.3d at 685 (citing Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 45 F. Supp. 3d 431, 435 (M.D. Pa. 2014)).

8. Id. at 686.

9. Id. at 687.

10. Id. at 688.

11. Id. at 683.

12. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 689 (3d Cir. 2016).

13. Id.

14. Id. at 709.

15. 613 F.3d 119, 127 (3d Cir. 2010).

16. Sikkelee, 822 F.3d at 690–93.

17. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 696 (3d Cir. 2016).

18. Id. at 692.

19. Id. at 692–93.

20. Id. at 693.

21. Id. at 694.

22. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680, 696 (3d Cir. 2016).

23. Id. at 696–97.

24. Id. at 696–99.

25. Id. at 695.

26. Id. at 704.

27. Id. at 702.

28. 2016 WL 3962805, at *1 (D. Haw. July 21, 2016). Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP represented the aircraft owner/lessor in this matter.

29. The aircraft owner leased the helicopter to the operator pursuant to a long-term lease. Id. at *2.

30. Id. at *1, *5; see also 49 U.S.C. § 44112(b).

31. Escobar, 2016 WL 3962805, at *5–6. Hawaii law would arguably have imposed liability on the aircraft owner, regardless of whether the owner was in actual possession or control of the helicopter at the time of the accident. See, e.g., Stewart v. Budget Rent-a-Car Corp., 470 P.2d 240 (Haw. 1970); Acoba v. Gen. Tire, Inc., 986 P.2d 288 (Haw. 1999).

32. Escobar, 2016 WL 3962805, at *5 (citing Martin v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806, 808 (9th Cir. 2009)).

33. Escobar v. Nev. Helicopter Leasing, LLC, 2016 WL 3962805, at *1 (D. Haw. July 21, 2016). As a result, the court also found that the Third Circuit's reasoning in Sikkelee v. Precision Air Motive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3d Cir. 2016), did not apply. Escobar, 2016 WL 3962805, at *5 n.4.

34. Escobar, 2016 WL 3962805, at *6.

35. See Vreeland v. Ferrer, 71 So. 3d 70, 84–85 (Fla. 2001) (interpreting the statute's "on land or water" requirement to mean that an owner, lessor, or secured party is not exempt from liability for crewmember and passenger claims and is exempt only from claims brought by persons who were "underneath" the aircraft at the time of the accident; thus finding that the statute does not preempt state law tort causes of actions asserted by those persons onboard the aircraft at the time of the accident); Storie v. Southfield, 282 N.W.2d 417, 420– 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979) (finding that the predecessor version of the statute did not prevent states from imposing liability on aircraft owners for injuries that occurred inside of the aircraft.)

36. Escobar, 2016 WL 3962805, at *10; see also Lu v. Star Marianas Air, Inc., 2015 WL 2265464 (D. N.M.I. May 12, 2015); In re Lawrence W. Inlow Accident Litig., 2001 WL 331625 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 7, 2001); Matei v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 1990 WL 43351 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 1990).

Originally published in the Winter 2017 issue of the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.