Justia Aviation Opinion Summaries

This case stems from a fatal plane crash in which a pilot, Chelsea Brittney Infanger, collided with exhaust stacks owned by a processing plant near the Burley Municipal Airport in Idaho. The stacks, which extended over 100 feet high, were situated within the runway’s approach path and had been the subject of prior regulatory concern. The pilot’s parents brought a wrongful death suit, alleging that the Idaho Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics negligently failed to regulate or mitigate the known risk posed by these stacks, arguing that various statutory, common law, special relationship, and contractual duties compelled the Division to act.After settlements with other defendants, the case proceeded against the Division in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County. The Division moved for summary judgment, contending it owed no individualized duty to the deceased under the Airport Zoning Act, common law, or through a special relationship, and that it was immune under the Idaho Tort Claims Act. The district court agreed, holding that the Division’s statutory duties were general obligations to the public, not specific duties to individual aviators, and found no basis for liability under special relationship or contract theories. The court granted summary judgment to the Division, and the plaintiffs appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the Airport Zoning Act did not create a tort duty to a particular class of persons, but rather imposed general obligations for public safety, and thus could not support a negligence per se claim. The Court also found that the plaintiffs did not preserve or demonstrate the elements necessary for a special relationship or assumed duty sufficient to impose liability. The Court declined to award attorney fees, but granted costs to the Division. View "Infanger v. State of Idaho, Idaho Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Several individuals living within a five-mile radius of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport sued two major airlines and the Port of Seattle. They alleged that pollution from aircraft takeoffs and landings caused harm to their health and property, particularly from particulate matter and other pollutants released by aircraft engines and fuselages. Plaintiffs claimed the defendants had knowledge of studies linking these pollutants to negative health outcomes and property devaluation but failed to remediate or prevent further pollution. The affected community was described as disproportionately composed of minority, immigrant, and low-income residents.The plaintiffs initially brought their case in King County Superior Court, but the defendants removed it to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs advanced state tort and constitutional claims, seeking various remedies including damages, injunctive relief, and remediation. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were a collateral attack on federal agency actions, were expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law, and failed to state a claim. The district court denied the motions, finding that the complaint did not directly challenge any specific agency order and that preemption was not clearly established at this stage. The district court certified its order for interlocutory appeal.Reviewing the case on interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction because the collateral attack doctrine did not apply; defendants could not identify any specific agency orders inescapably implicated by the plaintiffs’ claims. However, the court held that the claims were expressly preempted by Section 233 of the Clean Air Act, which bars states from enforcing any emission standards for aircraft pollutants unless identical to federal standards. The court reversed the district court’s order denying the motion to dismiss and remanded the case. View "CODONI V. PORT OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

The case centers on an incident during a Delta Air Lines domestic flight, where a passenger’s behavior prompted concerns among fellow travelers and flight attendants. After an off-duty pilot and other passengers reported the passenger’s conduct as suspicious, the lead flight attendant, following consultation with the captain, approached the passenger and attempted to ask him to remain seated. This interaction escalated into a physical confrontation, leading the flight attendant to request assistance from a federal law enforcement agent onboard. The agent, with the flight attendant’s help, restrained the passenger until the plane landed. The passenger later alleged that he suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result of the restraint.At trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a jury found in favor of the passenger, awarding him substantial damages for bodily and emotional injuries. However, the district court vacated the verdict, citing excessive damages and the interdependence of liability and damages. The court subsequently granted summary judgment for Delta Air Lines, concluding that the airline was immune from liability under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) for any injuries sustained after the flight attendants reported the passenger’s behavior to law enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that ATSA immunity applies not only to the initial disclosure of suspicious activity to law enforcement but also to subsequent conduct stemming from law enforcement’s decisions following such disclosure. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the passenger’s conduct was objectively suspicious or whether Delta was solely responsible for the injuries. As Delta was immune for all physical injuries, the passenger could not recover for any alleged emotional injuries under the Montreal Convention. View "BANDARY V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC." on Justia Law

A helicopter owned and operated by the Huntington Beach Police Department crashed in 2022, resulting in the death of Officer Nicholas Vella and serious injury to Officer RJ Garwood. The plaintiffs alleged that the crash was caused by a defect in the helicopter’s stability augmentation system. The helicopter, a model MD520N, was manufactured by The Boeing Company in 1998 and delivered to the police department that same year. It had a seating capacity of five and was type and airworthiness certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).The plaintiffs initially brought their claims for strict products liability, breach of warranties, and negligence in California state court. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The defendants, including The Boeing Company and MacD Helicopters, moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act’s (GARA) 18-year statute of repose. The plaintiffs contended that GARA did not apply to “public aircraft” such as those owned by governmental entities. The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments, found that the helicopter met GARA’s definition of “general aviation aircraft,” and granted the motions to dismiss. The court certified its decision for interlocutory appeal and stayed further proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether GARA’s statute of repose applied to the police helicopter. The court held that the statute’s definition of “general aviation aircraft” includes government-owned aircraft, as long as the statutory requirements are met. The panel expressly rejected the argument that the Federal Aviation Act’s “public aircraft” definition is incorporated into GARA and concluded that GARA contains no “public aircraft” exception. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit. View "VELLA V. MACD HELICOPTERS, INC." on Justia Law

Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de México, S.A. de C.V. sought approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for a joint venture to provide integrated airline services between the United States and Mexico. DOT approved the joint venture in 2016, granting both approval and antitrust immunity after finding that it would increase competition and public benefits in the U.S.–Mexico aviation market. As part of the approval, DOT required the petitioners to divest certain take-off and landing slots at Mexico City’s airport and imposed a five-year limit on antitrust immunity, citing concerns about slot allocation practices at that airport.After the initial approval, the petitioners operated under these conditions and, in 2022, sought renewal of the joint venture’s approval and immunity. However, DOT issued show-cause orders in 2024, and subsequently a final order in 2025, terminating both the approval and antitrust immunity. The DOT’s decision was based primarily on changes to slot allocation and restrictions on all-cargo carriers by the Mexican government at Mexico City’s airport, which DOT concluded had undermined competition and the public interest. The petitioners challenged this final order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that DOT’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the petitioners. It found that DOT had departed from its uniform practice of conducting comprehensive market analyses, instead focusing narrowly on a single airport without adequate explanation. The court also determined that DOT had imposed a requirement for open skies agreement implementation on the petitioners that it had not imposed in similar cases involving other countries. The court held that DOT’s final order was arbitrary and capricious, and vacated the order. View "Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

A pilot was selected for a random drug test at work and tested positive for amphetamine, a prohibited substance under federal aviation regulations. He was immediately grounded by his employer but later reinstated after completing a return-to-duty process. The pilot explained that he had inadvertently ingested his son’s prescription medication, Vyvanse, mistaking it for his own, due to a stressful family medical emergency and similar-looking pill bottles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initiated proceedings to revoke his pilot and medical certificates, as such a violation typically warrants revocation.The case was first heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found that the pilot had violated the regulations but reduced the sanction from revocation to a 90-day suspension, citing mitigating circumstances. Both parties appealed. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reviewed the case de novo, concluded the pilot had proven his accidental-ingestion defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and upheld the 90-day suspension. The NTSB found aggravating factors as well, including the pilot’s failure to report the ingestion before performing safety-sensitive duties.The pilot then sought attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), arguing that he was the prevailing party. An ALJ granted his application, but the NTSB reversed, concluding that although the pilot prevailed in obtaining a reduced sanction, the FAA’s position in seeking revocation was substantially justified. On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the NTSB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court denied the petition for review, holding that the FAA’s actions throughout the proceedings had a reasonable basis in law and fact. View "Knight v. NTSB" on Justia Law

Two individuals died in a 2012 plane crash involving a Piper PA-32-300 Cherokee 6 aircraft powered by a Lycoming engine manufactured by Avco Corporation in the early 1970s. The engine had undergone overhauls in 1983 and 2004, with several component parts serviced or replaced during those processes. The estates and families of the decedents brought suit in Rhode Island Superior Court against Avco, alleging strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Avco asserted a defense under the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), which bars certain claims against aircraft manufacturers after eighteen years, subject to specific exceptions for misrepresentation and newly installed parts.The Providence County Superior Court addressed the applicability of GARA’s exceptions. The court found that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint failed to plead, with the required specificity, facts showing that Avco knowingly misrepresented or withheld information from the FAA as required by GARA’s misrepresentation exception. As a result, discovery on this theory was limited. On the rolling provision, the court allowed discovery on specific parts allegedly replaced within eighteen years prior to the crash but found plaintiffs failed to prove that any such part was both manufactured by Avco and causally related to the accident. The trial justice granted summary judgment for Avco on all claims.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that GARA requires plaintiffs to plead specific facts to invoke the misrepresentation exception, which the plaintiffs had not done. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the application of GARA’s rolling provision, as they did not establish that any newly installed part made by Avco caused the crash. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment in favor of Avco. View "Williams v. Avco Corporation" on Justia Law

Five individuals residing near a New Orleans hospital brought suit after the hospital moved its helicopter landing pad from a one-story building near the Mississippi River to the top of a new tower in the center of the hospital complex. The plaintiffs, claiming that the new helipad created excessive noise and vibrations, sought a mandatory injunction requiring the hospital to relocate the helipad or otherwise abate the disturbance, as well as damages for nuisance and negligence.The defendants removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request to remand the case to state court, finding that their subsequent removal of class-action allegations and request to decline supplemental jurisdiction amounted to improper forum shopping. The district court then granted the defendants partial summary judgment, holding that Federal Aviation Administration regulations preempted any permanent injunction to relocate the helipad. The court also dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims for damages, but allowed their claims for general nuisance damages to proceed to trial. Before trial, the plaintiffs appealed the order, seeking review of the denial of their request for an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal because the district court’s order did not explicitly deny an injunction and, even if it had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief, the plaintiffs did not show that they satisfied the requirements for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and Carson v. American Brands, Inc. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Rey v. LCMC Health Care Partners" on Justia Law

A property development company sought to build mixed-use housing developments near a public-use airport operated by the City of Longmont, Colorado. The proposed developments were located under the airport’s approach and departure paths. The company received preliminary approvals from the City for its projects and obtained “Determinations of No Hazard” from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which found the developments would not obstruct flight paths. However, the FAA sent letters to the City warning that approving the developments would violate a grant assurance tied to the airport’s federal funding, specifically regarding land use compatibility. The City subsequently denied the company’s proposal, citing multiple reasons, including the FAA’s letters, concerns from state authorities, its own findings of incompatibility, and public opposition.After the City’s decision, the developer asked the FAA to withdraw its letters, but the FAA declined. The company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order the FAA to vacate and withdraw these letters, arguing that the FAA’s actions directly caused its injury by influencing the City’s denial.The D.C. Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of standing. The court held that the developer failed to demonstrate that vacating the FAA’s letters would likely result in the City approving the developments, as the City had provided multiple independent reasons for its denial beyond the FAA’s communications. The court also found that the company did not comply with the court’s procedural rule requiring petitioners to argue and provide evidence of standing in their opening brief. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. View "ModernWest Longmont, LLC v. FAA" on Justia Law

Two American companies, Declan Flight, Inc. and Right Rudder Aviation, LLC (RRA), developed successful sales and distribution relationships with Pipistrel, a Slovenian aircraft manufacturer, through contracts signed in 2020 and 2021. Their contracts contained forum-selection clauses specifying Slovenia as the forum for disputes. In 2022, Textron, Inc., a large U.S. aerospace company, acquired Pipistrel through its subsidiary Textron eAviation, Inc. Shortly after the acquisition, Textron and eAviation orchestrated the termination of Declan’s and RRA’s contracts. RRA also lost a separate sales contract with Mesa Airlines after Textron and eAviation allegedly interfered with that business relationship.Declan and RRA sued Textron and eAviation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging tortious interference with the Pipistrel contracts and with the Mesa Airlines contract. The district court dismissed the claims related to the Pipistrel contracts (Counts I and II) for forum non conveniens, holding that the forum-selection clauses could be enforced by Textron and eAviation—nonsignatories—under the federal doctrine of equitable estoppel, thus requiring litigation to proceed in Slovenia. The district court also found that personal jurisdiction existed for the Mesa Airlines claim (Count III), but dismissed it for failure to state a claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Counts I and II. The court held that the applicability of the forum-selection clauses is governed by Slovenian law, not federal common law, and that Slovenian law does not permit nonsignatories to invoke these clauses. Thus, the district court erred in applying the modified forum non conveniens rule from Atlantic Marine. The Eleventh Circuit also reversed the finding of personal jurisdiction over Textron and eAviation as to Count III, remanding all claims for further proceedings. View "Declan Flight, Inc. v. Textron eAviation, Inc." on Justia Law