Vol ume 3, I ssue 3
In this issue:
$2.8 Million Verdict Upheld Against Engine Manufacturer
Cook County Jury Returns Mulmillion Dollar Verdict in Afghanistan Plane Crash
Wrongful Death Suit
The Next Froner for the Aviaon Industry: 3D-Prinng
Lycoming Prevails on Remand of Sikkelee Case from The United States Supreme Court
Senate Introduces Cabin Air Safety Act to Address Problem of Toxic Fumes Entering
Aircra Cabins
Fourth Circuit Expands Government Contractor Defense in Failure to Warn Cases
Tickeng Agreements May Establish Personal Jurisdicon Over Airlines, But Being a
“Successive Carrier” Will Not Necessarily Result in Liability
Sixth Circuit Changes Landscape of Recovery for Emoonal Damages Under
Montreal Convenon
$2.8 Million Verdict Upheld Against
Engine Manufacturer
Lee C. Schmeer, Philadelphia
lschmeer@schnader.com
A federal district Court recently denied a
Rule 50(b) renewed moon for judgment
as a maer of law aer concluding that
the jury had sucient evidence to nd engine
manufacturer Connental Motors, Inc. liable to
plains for nearly $2.8 million. The case, Snider v.
Sterling Airways, Inc., arose from the crash of a
Cessna T210L in June 2010, which killed the pilot and
two passengers. The cause of the crash was
determined to be an engine failure resulng from a
failure of one of the engine exhaust valve guides, a
component in the engine’s cylinder assemblies.
Connental argued that 1) there was insucient
evidence to conclude that it manufactured a replace-
ment valve guide that was installed in 2004, which
implicated the General Aviaon Revitalizaon Act
(“GARA”) rolling provision for that component and
reset GARA’s 18-year statute of repose; and
2) plains had failed to prove that a structural
defect in the exhaust valve guide caused the
component’s failure.
In nding against Connental on the rst point, the
court reasoned that the replacement component
bore a Connental serial number, had been
manufactured by a third party but was built for
Connental using Connental specicaons, and
that Connental inspected samples of each batch of
valve guides to ensure they met those specicaons.
In deciding against Connental on its second
argument, the court cited plains’ expert
tesmony. Those experts concluded that the failed
engine component did not possess the requisite
metallurgical properes, leading to premature wear
and failure, and that the post-crash re had no eect
on the composion of the component. The court
noted that a reasonable jury could have accepted
Connental’s argument that its component was not
to blame for the crash, but that the record was not
“crically decient” of evidence to support the
plains’ verdict. Accordingly, Connental did not
meet the exacng standard for a court to grant a
renewed moon for judgment as a maer of law.
Snider v. Sterling Airways, Inc., No. 13-2949, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100878 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2017).
