Limitation of Liability
Limitation
of Liability for Common Air Carriers
In cases where the plaintiff can establish that the common air carrier's
negligence caused injury, the plaintiff might still face a limit in
the amount of money a court will award the plaintiff. Under the Federal
Aviation Act, an air carrier can file with the Civil Aeronautics
Board a tariff containing rules and regulations for the transportation
of persons. As part of the tariff, an air carrier can declare a limit
to its liability. As an example, and air carrier could declare a liability
limit of $75,000 per passenger. In the case of an accident based on
ordinary negligence, regardless of the damages a passenger might incur,
a court would limit any recover to $75,000. This limit on an air carrier's
liability does not apply in cases where a plaintiff establishes a
claim based on gross negligence or purposeful, willful or wanton conduct.
Consequently, cases involving air carriers often focus on the level
of negligence of the air carrier, in order that the
plaintiff might avoid the liability limit.
In
addition, the Warsaw Convention, a 1929 agreement
between several nations, including the United States, limits the liability
of air carriers in the event of accidents on international flights
to $75,000. Under the Warsaw Convention, a plaintiff can file suit
in one of four possible places, or "venues": (1) the country
where the passenger purchased the ticket, (2) the country of the passenger's
final destination, (3) the country where the airline is incorporated,
or (4) the country where the airline maintains its principle place
of business. The Warsaw Convention's liability limit does not apply
in the event of the airline's "willful misconduct", a subject
that is frequently and fiercely litigated.
The
Federal Aviation Act dictates the technical safety
standards for aircraft operated in the United States. The Act does
not, however, create a cause of action for plaintiffs injured as the
result of a defendant's failure to meet those safety standards. A
plaintiff must find a cause of action, therefore, in the individual
states' laws. The causes of action that might exist as the result
of an aviation accident depend upon the nature of the accident. In
cases where controlled flight into terrain, approach and landing,
loss of control, runway incursions, or weather (including turbulence)
caused the accident, a claim of negligence against the airline and
the pilots might exist. Such negligence claims include personal injury
claims, injury to property claims, and wrongful death claims. In those
cases, a plaintiff would need to establish that the pilot failed to
act in a manner comporting with the skill of the average commercial
pilot. If the plaintiff fails to establish that the average commercial
pilot should have avoided the accident then a court will not find
the airline liable.
Personal Injury Claims
In a personal injury or injury to property case,
the plaintiff must show that the air carrier, or one of its employees
acted negligently, and that as a result, the plaintiff incurred injury
to him or herself or to his or her property. In injury to property
claims, the jury can award a plaintiff damages in the amount of repairing
or replacing the damaged property. In personal injury claims, the
jury can award a plaintiff damages for pain and suffering, medical
expenses, lost wages, both past and future, and inconvenience as a
result of bodily injury.
Wrongful Death
Wrongful death claims have certain requirements that
differ from personal injury claims. The individual suing for wrongful
death must have a relationship to the decedent on whose behalf the
suit is being brought. In some states only parents, children, spouses
or executors of the decedent's estate may bring a wrongful death claim.
As part of such a claim, the plaintiff must show that the decedent's
death resulted from the negligent, wanton or willful actions of the
defendant air carrier. In such cases, if the death occurred instantaneously,
the jury can award the plaintiff from loss of consortium, lost wages,
loss of future income or earning capacity. In cases where death does
not occur instantaneously, and the plaintiff can prove the decedent's
conscious suffering, the jury can also award damages for pain and
suffering, bodily mutilation, and mental anguish.
Mechanical Failure
In a case in which mechanical failure contributed
to the accident, the plaintiff may have to establish that the pilot's
negligence contributed to the accident or that a mechanic negligently
failed to detect or properly repair a component of the plane. In such
cases, the plaintiff can maintain a lawsuit against the common air
carrier or the owner of the private plane. A few states may also allow
an action for breach of implied warranty of a plane's airworthiness
in such a case; however, many states do not allow an implied breach
of warranty to support a wrongful death suit.Where a mechanical failure
results from a defect in the design or construction of an airplane
or a component of the airplane, the plaintiff may establish a products
liability claim against the manufacturer of the component or the airplane.
In a products liability claim based on defective construction or manufacturing,
the plaintiff must establish that the manufacturer of the component
that caused the accident failed to detect a defect in the particular
component that was used in the airplane that had the accident.
Defective
Product
Products liability based on the premise that the
design of the particular component was defective represents a unique
hurdle for a plaintiff, in that the plaintiff must establish that
the manufacturer could have used a reasonable, alternative design
that would have prevented the injury. A plaintiff might incur great
expense in pursuing a products liability case based on defective design.
In order to establish a reasonable, alternative design the plaintiff
will likely have to hire an engineer or other expert to critique the
manufacturer's design and to suggest the alternative design. A products
liability case faces a better chance for success if prior cases have
already established that the design of the component is defective.
Pilot
or Employee Error
Under a legal doctrine known as respondeat superior, the high degree
of care required of a common carrier extends to its employees, including
pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics. Therefore, if an accident
occurs in which pilot error results in some accident that causes a
passenger injury, that passenger can maintain a suit not only against
the pilot for his or her error, but also against the pilots employer,
the airline. In effect, employees acting in their capacity as employees
"stand in" for the airline. Thus, an employee's error is
the airline's error.
Limitation of Liability for General Aviation
While
the Warsaw Convention and Federal Aviation Act rules limiting liability
do not apply to general aviators, some states, such as South Dakota
and Illinois have Guest Statutes, which limit the liability of a private
plane owner. Guest statutes require that a plaintiff who suffers injuries
while a guest on an owner's plane show wanton or willful conduct resulted
in the plaintiff's injury. This standard represents a higher hurdle
for a plaintiff than mere negligence. Wanton and willful conduct includes
actions that purposefully caused an accident, as well as action that
appeared so likely to cause the accident that any reasonable person
would not have acted in that manner. In order for a Guest Statute
to operate to protect an owner of a plane, the owner must show that
he or she allowed the plaintiff to ride in the plane without charging
fare, and that the accident did not result from purposeful or grossly
irresponsible behavior. Furthermore, the plaintiff must have incurred
his or her injury while a passenger on the owner's plane.
Unlike
commercial air carriers, the law generally does not require private
or general aviators to maintain a heightened standard of care towards
its passengers. The law treats a general aviator much like the operator
of a motor vehicle, requiring that the pilot use reasonable care to
prevent accident or injury. Even in cases where a general aviator
agrees to carry a fare-paying passenger, only the ordinary rules of
negligence and due care apply with respect to the maintenance and
inspection of the aircraft. Like the standard for commercial pilots,
the pilot of a private aircraft must still comport with the standards
of care and expertise of the average, qualified pilot in the operation
of the plane.
Many
states make owners of private planes vicariously liable for the actions
of a pilot operation the owner's plane, even where that pilot is not
an employee of the owner. This rule allows a plaintiff injured on
a private plane to sue the owner, even if the owner did not directly
contribute accident that caused the plaintiff's injury. States designed
this rule to encourage owners of private aircraft to take the utmost
care in deciding whether to allow an individual to fly the owner's
plane. If the owner knows that any error the pilot might make could
result in liability on the owner's part, then the owner might select
more carefully those people allowed to pilot his aircraft.
Another
unique aspect of liability law for general aviators is the absolute
liability for objects falling from the plane while in flight. Several
states have enacted laws that hold a private plane owner liable for
any injuries resulting from objects falling from the owner's plane.
Absolute liability, also known as strict liability, holds the owner
responsible for any damage regardless of whether the owner could have
done something to prevent the accident. Thus, if a plaintiff incurs
an injury from an object falling from the plane while it is in flight,
the plaintiff can hold the owner of that plane absolutely liable for
any resulting damages.
Contact
an Aviation Attorney in your State
Information
& Support Resources for victims & families
