Story of 5

Product Liability

Illinois Appellate Court: Statute of repose, insufficient evidence relieve airplane manufacturer in negligence and strict liability lawsuit

The Illinois statute of repose applied to bar products liability claims filed against an aircraft manufacturer for an injury that occurred on an aircraft sold to an air carrier more than 20 years before the incident, a state appellate court in Illinois ruled in an unpublished opinion, affirming the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the manufacturer on all counts. The appellate court also determined that the evidence did not support the passenger’s breach of warranty, negligent design, or negligent manufacture claims. (Hutton v. Boeing Co., October 29, 2015, Howse, N.).

Background. In 2009, two passengers aboard a 737-300 aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company and sold to Southwest Airlines in 1988 were struck in the head when a panel fell from above their seats. Both passengers received medical attention while onboard the airplane. An aircraft mechanic testified that the panel weighed two to three ounces. One of the passengers, Anthony Ware, stated that his injuries were minor to nonexistent, but Berniece Hutton asked to be transported to a hospital. She later filed a multi-count lawsuit against Boeing, Southwest Airlines, a paramedic, and the hospital where she was transported, alleging that she had several serious and related injuries and asked for more than $50 million in damages.

Boeing’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The trial court concluded that the Illinois statute of repose barred the product liability and failure to warn claims, the negligent manufacture claim failed because there was no evidence that Boeing owed Hutton any duty after the sale of the airplane, and that Hutton lacked standing to pursue the breach of warranty claims because she did not demonstrate that she was an intended beneficiary of any warranty. Hutton was permitted to file the present appeal while the claims against Southwest remained pending in state court.

Products liability. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the Illinois products liability statute of repose applied to bar the strict liability and failure to warn claims against the manufacturer. The passenger admitted that the manufacturer sold the airplane in 1988 and that her injuries occurred in 2009—beyond the 10 or 12 years provided by the statute. The passenger did not demonstrate that the statute of repose was tolled or that any other exception applied and, thus, the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on those issues was correct.

Breach of warranty. The passenger’s assertion that the manufacturer breached its express warranty with respect to the airplane and its component parts being fit and safe for the purposes for which they were designed and manufactured failed because she did not proffer the terms of the warranty, which are necessary under Illinois law to state a valid cause of action. Additionally, the passenger’s claim for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for the purpose of safe flight failed because she did not establish what specific defect existed in the panel when it was still in the manufacturer’s control or offer direct or circumstantial evidence to exclude the possibility that there were other causes of the alleged defect. Consequently, summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer on the warranties issue was affirmed.

Negligent design. The passenger failed to present expert testimony and to demonstrate that the manufacturer knew that the product was unreasonably dangerous and, thus, her claim for negligent design failed. According to Illinois law, expert testimony is required on the standard of care and a deviation from that standard. The passenger did not produce expert testimony, relying instead on an airworthiness directive issued by the Federal Aviation Administration in 2005 concerning inspection and remedial maintenance of ceiling panels in 737-300 aircraft. However, the panel that struck the passenger was not identified in the evidentiary record as being the same type of ceiling panel addressed by the FAA directive. The affidavit of an employee of the manufacturer supported the position that the ceiling panels in the directive were different from the panel that fell and struck the passenger. The passenger could not strike the affidavit for violating evidentiary rules because she failed to show it would be prejudicial.

Negligent manufacture. The passenger also failed to proffer evidence that her injury was the proximate result of the manufacturer’s breach of its duty to produce a safe airplane. Deposition testimony by the airline mechanic who initially repaired the panel and the mechanic who replaced the panel’s latch did not establish that the panel was defective before it fell, and there was no other evidence that a defect existed. Because the record demonstrated that the passenger could never prove that the panel falling was caused by a defect, summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer was proper.  

The case is Nos. 1-14-2697 and 1-14-2812, Consolidated.

Attorneys: (Perkins Coie LLP) for The Boeing Co. and Southwest Airlines Co.

Companies: The Boeing Co.; Southwest Airlines Co.