Crouch et al v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.

Filing 315

ORDER denying 240 Motion as set out.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 6/29/2011. (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY DALE CROUCH,
RHONDA MAE CROUCH,
TEDDY LEE HUDSON, and
CAROLYN SUE HUDSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 10-00072-KD-N

ORDER
This action is before the Court on Defendant Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.’s motion to
strike and exclude expert testimony regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to warn claim (doc. 240) and
Plaintiffs’ response in opposition (doc. 260). By separate order, the Court has addressed the
exclusion of expert testimony on Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim. The Court now considers TCM’s
argument that it has no duty to warn under the substantive law of Kentucky, specifically, the
component parts doctrine, or the applicable Federal Aviation Administration Regulations.
TCM argues that under Kentucky law, as a “component parts supplier”, it cannot be held
liable for failing to warn because it has no duty independent of Lycoming to “analyze the design of
the completed product [the Lycoming engine] which incorporates its non-defective component
part”. (doc. 240, p. 22). TCM also argues that FAA regulations do not create a duty to warn and
therefore the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim.
Plaintiffs respond that TCM has “used this motion to argue that Plaintiffs do not have a
failure to warn claim as a matter of law, due to the so-called ‘component parts doctrine.’” Plaintiffs
argue that “the proper time to make that motion would have been before the deadline for dispositive

motions” and therefore, the claim against TCM for failure to warn should proceed to trial.
The deadline for dispositive motions was April 22, 2011 (Doc. 93). TCM did not obtain an
extension of that deadline. Accordingly, to the extent the pending motion is TCM’s attempt to
obtain judgment as a matter of law that Plaintiffs’ do not have a failure to warn claim, the motion is
DENIED as it is untimely.
DONE and ORDERED this the 29th day of June, 2011.

s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2