Schiewe v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

546 P.3d 234

2024 OK 19

Jade P. SCHIEWE and Zachary Pfaff, Plaintiffs/Appellnnts,

v.CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee, Spartan Aviation Industries, Inc., Kelly Aerospace Turbine Rotables, Inc., and Eaton Corporation, Defendants.

No. 121,203

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Filed March 12, 2024

ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY; HONORABLE DAMAN H. CANTRELL, DISTRICT JUDGE

¶0 This case arises out of an airplane crash that occurred in September 2010. Plaintiffs, Jade P. Schiewe and Zachary Pfaff (Pilots) filed suit in Tulsa County District Court against Defendant, Cessna Aircraft Company, for negligently failing to revise its service manual. Cessna filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Pilots’ claims were barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA). After years of litigation, the Tulsa County District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cessna. We retained Pilots’ appeal to determine whether GARA’s 18-year statute of repose applies.

AFFIRMED.

Tadd Bogan, Patrick G. Colvin, and C. Michael Copeland, Jones, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellants Jade P. Schiewe and Zachary Pfaff.

James K. Secrest, II, James Secrest, III, and Edward J. Main, Secrest, Hill, Butler & Secrest, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Michael G. Jones, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, L.L.P., Wichita, Kansas, for Appellee Cessna Aircraft Company, subsequently merged into Textron Aviation Inc.

OPINION

DARBY, J.,

¶1 In August 2011, Plaintiffs, Jade P. Schiewe and Zachary Pfaff (Pilots), filed a negligence lawsuit against Cessna Aircraft in Tulsa County District Court. The lawsuit was based on an airplane crash that occurred on September 28, 2010, when Pilots were flying a Cessna 172RG, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Pilots’ claim is based on Cessna’s alleged negligent failure to revise the service manual for the Cessna 172RG to include a new part and installation instructions for said part. The underlying question before this Court is whether a claim for negligent failure to revise a service manual is subject to the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), Pub. L. No. 103-298, Aug. 17, 1994, 108 Stat. 1552, 49 U.S.C. 40101 note. We answer in the affirmative.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1–3] ¶2 Summary judgment settles only questions of law, therefore it is reviewed de novo. Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, ¶ 2, 489 P.3d 20, 22. Statutory interpretation is also a question of law subject to de novo review. Thurston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 105, ¶ 2, 478 P.3d 415, 417. We will affirm summary judgment only if we determine from the pleadings and evidence before it, that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fraternal Order of Police, 2021 OK 20, ¶ 2, 489 P.3d at 22; see also 12 O.S.2011, § 2056(C).

II. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 On September 28, 2010, Pilots were flying Cessna 172RG, Serial Number 172RG0258, Registration Number N5145U (the Aircraft), in Tulsa, Oklahoma. When Schiewe lowered the plane’s landing gear in preparation for landing, flames erupted from under the instrument panel. The fire was allegedly caused by the terminal lug on the plane’s hydraulic pump power pack for the landing gear shorting and arcing onto the case of the power pack. The fire quickly spread to the floor of the aircraft and filled the cabin with smoke, causing Pilots to crash land in a nearby field.

¶4 The Federal Aviation Administration approved the Type Certificate for Cessna Aircraft Model 172RG on June 1, 1979. Cessna manufactured the Aircraft in January 1980. On February 1, 1980, Cessna sold the Aircraft to its first purchaser. The Aircraft was certified as airworthy on February 6, 1980.

¶5 Cessna later fabricated a "cap" that fit over the terminal lug of the hydraulic pump power pack. Pilots alleged the part was designed to prevent accidents like the one in this case. Cessna’s corporate representative testified that prior to this accident, Cessna primarily thought of the cap as a way to keep debris out of the connection. The 1980 thru 1984 Cessna parts catalog, dated June 30, 1983, listed the cap as "cover" and showed it in the parts diagram. The cap is also shown in the Model 172RG Series Parts Catalog (1980 Thru 1985), dated March 18, 1985. But Cessna never revised the service manual to provide instructions or visuals for installation of the cap.

¶6 Cessna has not overhauled, serviced, or otherwise provided maintenance work for the hydraulic power pack on the Aircraft subsequent to delivery to its first purchaser. Further, Cessna has not supplied any new component, system, subassembly, or other part for the hydraulic power pack on the Aircraft subsequent to delivery to its first purchaser.

¶7 In August 2011, Pilots filed a petition against Cessna Aircraft in Tulsa County District Court. Pilots’ claim is based upon Cessna’s alleged negligent failure to revise its service manual to include a specific instruction for the installation and proper positioning of a cap on the terminal of the Hydraulic Power Pack for Model 172RG Aircraft. On October 18, 2012, Cessna filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Pilots’ claims against Cessna were prohibited by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), Pub. L. No. 103-298, Aug. 17, 1994, 108 Stat. 1552, 49 U.S.C. 40101 note. Cessna argued that GARA’s 18-year statute of repose barred Pilots’ claims against Cessna because the Aircraft was manufactured in January 1980, Cessna sold it on February 1, 1980, it was certified as airworthy on February 6, 1980, and Cessna had not serviced or provided any maintenance for the Aircraft subsequent to the delivery of the Aircraft on February 1, 1980—all more than thirty years prior to the accident.

¶8 For the next ten and a half years, the parties continued to argue the question of summary judgment based on GARA; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to answer material issues of fact regarding dates, and Cessna and Pilots took depositions from relevant parties.¹ Through that process, it was revealed that the procedures and illustrations for the removal and installation of a Hydraulic Power Pack remained unchanged in the Service Manual through at least September 28, 2010, although there were various other unrelated edits to the Service Manual. The mechanic who installed the current power pack assembly testified that he knew that the Cessna Parts Catalog showed a cover for the post on the side of the power pack, but he did not install a cover because the cover was not mentioned in the Service Manual. After nine-and-a-half years, on November 10, 2022, Cessna filed a motion to reconsider the GARA issues again, citing to this Court’s recent rule changes allowing citation to unpublished Court of Civil Appeals’ opinions and asserting the relevancy of the recent unpublished Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, Lunn v. Continental Motors, Inc. (Lunn II), No. 119,394 (COCA Div. III Mar. 4, 2022)(unpublished), cert. denied (Okla. Sup. Ct. Dec. 19, 2022). After renewed briefing on the issues, on March 8, 2023, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cessna based on GARA’s statute of repose.

¶9 At the outset, the district court noted this Court’s rule change allowing district courts to consider unpublished COCA opinions as persuasive authority. The district court found that the parties agreed that the maintenance manual is not a part and therefore ruled that revision to the manual does not "re-start the GARA clock under GARA’s ‘rolling provision.’ " But the court found that an item does not need to be a "part" for the GARA statute of repose to apply, rather that it applies to prohibit actions against manufacturers acting in capacity as manufacturer. The court reviewed Lunn I, Lunn v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 2018 OK CIV APP 12, 417 P.3d 1206 (decided 2017; mandate issued 2018)(Lunn I), and Lunn II, Lunn v. Continental Motors, Inc. (Lunn II), No. 119,394 (COCA Div. III Mar. 4, 2022)(unpublished), cert. denied (Okla. Sup. Ct. Dec. 19, 2022); the district court noted that Lunn II relied on the plain language of GARA and cited to GARA’s language that "no civil action" can be maintained against the company "in its capacity as a manufacturer." The district court considered a federal case from Delaware wherein the court held that a manufacturer is acting in its capacity as manufacturer when it publishes maintenance manuals because federal regulations require the manufacturer to publish them. The district court ultimately held that GARA operates to bar the claims against Cessna based on maintenance manuals.

¶10 On appeal, Pilots assert that the district court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment, and by extending GARA protections to a claim for negligence with respect to a service manual. Pilots claim that the district court’s ruling creates an anomaly in aircraft manufacturer liability, where a manufacturer would be liable for negligence in design or manufacture of a new part for a 20-year-old plane but would not be liable for negligent revision of the service manual with erroneous instructions for the same new part. In their motion to retain, Pilots claim that GARA only absolves manufacturers of liability arising from a part or an aircraft, which the parties agreed the maintenance manual is not. Pilots requested the Court retain the appeal to answer whether GARA’s 18-year statute of repose for aircraft manufacturers applies to claims alleging the manufacturer’s negligence in maintaining the maintenance or service manual. The Court granted Pilots’ motion to retain.

III. ANALYSIS

¶11 The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), Pub. L. No. 103-298, Aug. 17, 1994, 108 Stat. 1552, 49 U.S.C. 40101 note,² is a federal statute of repose barring civil liability for manufacturers of aircrafts and aircraft parts starting eighteen years after the date of...