AVIATION TORT LAW

1
AVIATION TORT LAW
A. Claims 1. Domestic in General
2. Texas (a) Jurisdiction (b) Forum Non
Conveniens (c) Statute of Limitations
3. Admiralty
4. International
2
4. INTERNATIONAL
WARSAW CONVENTION

• ART. 17 -- STRICT LIABILITY
• ART. 22 -- LIMITATION ON DAMAGES
• ART. 28 -- JURISDICTION TO BRING CLAIMS
• ART. 25 -- WILFUL MISCONDUCT

3
AVIATION TORT LAW
A. Claims
B. Liability 1. General Principles 2. Legal
Concepts 3. Conflict of Laws
4
B. Liability General Principles/Legal Concepts

• NEGLIGENCE
• CONTRACT/BREACH OF WARRANTY
• STRICT LIABILITY - PRODUCT LIABILITY
• TRESPASS
• RES IPSA LOQUITER
• ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

5
NEGLIGENCE

• DUTY
• BREACH
• INJURY
• DAMAGE

6
DUTY
STANDARD OF CARE

• ORDINARY
• HEIGHTENED

7
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
UNEXCUSED VIOLATION OF A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT
OR ADMINISTATIVE REGULATION SETS THE DUTY AND
CONTRARY ACT IS BREACH
8
B. Liability General Principles/Legal Concepts

• NEGLIGENCE
• CONTRACT/BREACH OF WARRANTY
• STRICT LIABILITY - PRODUCT LIABILITY
• TRESPASS
• RES IPSA LOQUITER
• ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

9
CONTRACTS

• EXISTENCE
• FORMATION
• AUTHORITY
• RATIFICATION
• CONSIDERATION
• COMPLIANCE

10
B. Liability General Principles/Legal Concepts

• NEGLIGENCE
• CONTRACT/BREACH OF WARRANTY
• STRICT LIABILITY - PRODUCT LIABILITY
• TRESPASS
• RES IPSA LOQUITER
• ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

11
STRICT/PRODUCTS LIABILITY

• SELLER
• MANUFACTURING DEFECT
• DESIGN DEFECT
• MARKETING DEFECT
• PRODUCING CAUSE
• INJURY
• DAMAGES

12
B. Liability General Principles/Legal Concepts

• NEGLIGENCE
• CONTRACT/BREACH OF WARRANTY
• STRICT LIABILITY - PRODUCT LIABILITY
• TRESPASS
• RES IPSA LOQUITER
• ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

13
RES IPSA LOQUITER
THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
14
B. Liability General Principles/Legal Concepts

• NEGLIGENCE
• CONTRACT/BREACH OF WARRANTY
• STRICT LIABILITY - PRODUCT LIABILITY
• TRESPASS
• RES IPSA LOQUITER
• ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

15
CONFLICT OF LAWS ANALYSIS
LEX FORI
LEX LOCI DELICTI
MODERN CHOICES
16
MODERN CHOICES INCLUDE

• SIGNIFICANT/QUALITIVE RELATIONSHIP
• GOVERNMENT INTERESTS
• IMPAIRMENT
• COMBINATIONS

17
TRUE CONFLICT Exists when the government
interest of both jurisdictions would be impaired
if their law were not applied Then court must
determine which state has greater interest in the
application of its law.
18
FALSE CONFLICT Exists if only one
jurisdictions governmental interests would be
impaired by application of the other
jurisdictions law Then there really is no
conflict and the court must apply the law of the
state whose interests would be harmed if its law
were not applied.
19
3 STEP ANALYSIS AFTER
NARROWING TO RELEVANT STATES
3
2
1
20
1. Is there an apparent conflict?
21
1. Is there an apparent conflict?
Strict v. Negligence
Punitive v. limited punitive
22
1. Is there an apparent conflict? Strict v.
Negligence Punitive v. limited punitive
2. If apparent, then do both states have a
legitimate interest in the
application of its policy? If not, then false
conflict.
23
FALSE CONFLICT Exists if only one
jurisdictions governmental interests would be
impaired by application of the other
jurisdictions law Then there really is no
conflict and the court must apply the law of the
state whose interests would be harmed if its law
were not applied.
24
1. Is there an apparent conflict? Strict v.
Negligence Punitive v. limited punitive
2. If apparent, then do both states have a
legitimate interest in the
application of its policy? If so, then true
conflict.
25
TRUE CONFLICT Exists when the government
interest of both jurisdictions would be impaired
if their law were not applied Then court must
determine which state has greater interest in the
application of its law.
26
3. Analyze conflict by applying choice of law
analysis prescribed by state.
27
3. Analyze conflict by applying choice of law
analysis prescribed by state.
For example 1) Impairment, (which state is
most impaired if its law is not
applied?) 2) Most significant
relationship 3) Governmental interest
or 4) Combinations of above
28
DEPECAGE
Issue by issue, party by party application
29
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESON
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
PIPER v REYNO
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
DUNCAN
LACEY
SOUIX CITY
30
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESEN Co.
Federal court diversity
Lex Fori
Most Significant Contacts
31
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESON
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
PIPER v REYNO
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
DUNCAN
LACEY
SOUIX CITY
32
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
Jurisdiction defeated using choice of law
Lex loci
New Mexico Guest Statute
33
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESON
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
PIPER v REYNO
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
DUNCAN
LACEY
SOUIX CITY
34
PIPER v REYNO
Dismissal on FNC using choice of law
Significance of T/or court for choice of law
35
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESON
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
PIPER v REYNO
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
DUNCAN
LACEY
SOUIX CITY
36
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
Effect of significant contacts v. lex loci
Wrongful death statute
37
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESON
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
PIPER v REYNO
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
DUNCAN
LACEY
SOUIX CITY
38
DUNCAN
Most significant relationship
39
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESON
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
PIPER v REYNO
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
DUNCAN
LACEY
SOUIX CITY
40
LACEY
True/False Conflict analysis
Pennsylvania v. British Columbia
Strict Liability v. Negligence
41
SALOOMEY v. JEPPESON
MCINTIRE v. FORTE
PIPER v REYNO
MARMON v. MUSTANG AVIATION
DUNCAN
LACEY
SOUIX CITY
42
SOUIX CITY
depecage
comparative impairment significant
relationship government interest