Aviation

• Author: International Law Group

On November 26, 1993, an airplane designed by Marchetti (a company owned by the Italian Government) crashed in California. Marchetti had sold the aircraft in 1970 to SA Sabena N.V. in Belgium, which later sold it to U.S. owners. The representatives of two victims of an aircraft crash sued the manufacturer, alleging that the defendant had failed to warn that a problematic mechanical component had to be replaced. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on grounds that a statute enacted after the crash barred the action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms.

First, the Court agrees that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (hereinafter GARA) [Pub.L. 103-298, 108 Stat. 1552 (1994)] precludes the suit. Defendants first delivered the aircraft in question about 23 years before the accident. GARA's 18-year period of limitation began on the date of the first transfer from the manufacturer. Although Congress enacted GARA after the accident in question, it became effective prior to plaintiffs' filing this action. GARA constitutionally applied retroactively to bar this action because Congress had made a conscious decision that GARA should limit the liability of aircraft manufacturers.

"It is apparent that Congress was deeply concerned about the enormous product liability costs that our tort system had imposed upon manufacturers of general aviation aircraft. It believed that manufacturers were being driven to the wall because, among other things, of the long tail of liability attached to those aircraft, which could be used decades after they were first manufactured and sold. (Cit.) Congress therefore enacted GARA..." [The limitation period of 18 years begins to run on] "A) [the] date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser or lessee, if delivered directly from the manufacturer; or B) the date of first delivery of the aircraft to a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing such aircraft." [Slip op. 11-12].

The plaintiffs argued that it would be unconstitutional for the Court to apply the statute retroactively. The Court holds, however, that the Supreme Court has recognized certain instances where legislation may operate this way. After closely reading the text and investigating the legislative intent, the Court concludes that Congress clearly did intend the law to apply to all actions, even...