Federal Court Strikes NTSB Report And Expert Opinion That Relied On It

SH
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP

Contributor

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP logo
Schnader is a full-service law firm of 160 attorneys with offices in Pennsylvania, New York, California, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Delaware and an affiliation with a law firm in Jakarta. We provide businesses, government entities, and nonprofit organizations throughout the world with innovative, practical, and cost-effective solutions to their business and litigation needs. We also provide wealth management and an array of personal legal services to individuals.
In Olympic Air, Inc. v. Helicopter Tech. Co., the District Court for the Western District of Washington struck a National Transportation Safety Board report and portions of an expert's declaration that relied on it.
United States Transport
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Olympic Air, Inc. v. Helicopter Tech. Co., the District Court for the Western District of Washington struck a National Transportation Safety Board report and portions of an expert's declaration that relied on it. The argument to strike was that its inclusion violated the federal statute that provides, "No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report."

49 U.S.C. ยง 1154(b). The counterargument was that factual information from an NTSB investigation is admissible in a civil action, and the points relied on were factual findings.

The Court held that the statute plainly required that the report be stricken. The Court found that the statute, and a related regulation of the board that interprets "a report of the Board" to be the report that contains the probable cause conclusion, dictated the result and that the statement, "indications of root fitting disbondment ... occurred sufficiently early to have been detected if the inspections had been performed in accordance with the [airworthiness directive]" went beyond factual.

Distinguishing fact from opinion can be difficult.

With some accidents, the NTSB issues separate factual reports, which are admissible, from its probable cause report, which is not. The trouble is that, with other accidents, the NTSB combines the factual findings with the probable cause, making information that should be available for use by litigants essentially unavailable. That was the case here.

Olympic Air, Inc. v. Helicopter Tech. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48654 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2022).

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More