Younan et al v. Rolls-Royce Corporation

Filing 228

ORDER (Re Doc. 163 ): The motion in limine to exclude evidence of a duty to warn arising under 14 C.F.R. Section 21.3(b) is DENIED. No later than 5/28/2013, the parties shall file any new jury instruction(s) proposed in light of the ruling in this Order. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/22/2013. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

DALOUR YOUNAN, CHAD
HESSENFLOW, NANCY RUTH
BELL and VICKI HESSENFLOW,

14
15
16
17

vs.

CASE NO. 09cv2136-WQHBGS

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION , a
wholly owned subsidiary of Rolls
Royce, PLC; and MD
HELICOPTERS, INC. (MDHI), a
foreign corporation,
Defendants.

18
19 HAYES, Judge:
20

The matter before the Court is the motion in limine to exclude evidence of a duty

21 to warn arising under 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b) filed by the sole remaining Defendant, MD
22 Helicopters, Inc. (“MDHI”). (ECF No. 163).
23 I.

Background

24

On February 11, 2013, MDHI filed the Motion to Exclude Evidence or Reference

25 to Non-Training-Related Duty to Warn Other than Duty to Comply with 14 C.F.R. §§
26 27.1581-27.1589. (ECF No. 163).
27

On April 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their second supplemental brief related to

28 MDHI’s motion to exclude evidence or reference to non-training-related duty to warn.
-1-

09cv2136-WQH-BGS

1 (ECF No. 203). Plaintiffs quoted 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b)1 and stated:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The determination of the factual question of the existence of a
‘defect’ is for the trier of fact, not the Court. This Court should not
summarily rule, as a matter of law, that there is no ‘defect’ worthy of
reporting to the FAA under § 21.3, which is what MDHI seeks.
The essence of MDHI’s supplemental argument wrongfully limits
§ 21.3 to a duty to report ‘accidents.’ ... MDHI’s brief focuses on
accidents. However, § 21.3 involves a duty to report a ‘defect.’ 14 CFR
§ 21.3(a)-(c).
There is much more information available to a manufacturer and
Type Certificate holder than just ‘accidents.’
(ECF No. 203 at 2-3). Plaintiffs cited to the September 29, 2000 United States General
Accounting Office (“GAO”) Report and to the testimony of the former head of training
and lead pilot for MDHI regarding his knowledge of complaints by Customs and Border
Patrol pilots. See id. at 6-8.
On May 7, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the motion in limine to
preclude Plaintiffs from arguing that MDHI had a duty to warn arising under state
common law.2 (ECF No. 205 at 7-11). The Court granted the motion in limine to
preclude Plaintiffs from arguing that MDHI had a duty to warn arising under 14 C.F.R.
§§ 21.3(a) and/or 21.3(f). Id. at 11-12. The Court stated: “In the second supplemental
brief after oral argument, Plaintiffs raised the application of 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b). No
later than seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed, MDHI may file a
supplemental reply brief limited to responding to Plaintiffs’ argument concerning the
applicability of 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b).” (ECF No. 205 at 13).
On May 14, 2013, MDHI filed a supplemental reply brief regarding 14 C.F.R. §
21.3(b). (ECF No. 215). MDHI states:
Plaintiffs argue that, even if MDHI is not required to report the prior
MD600N accidents, Section 21.3(b) imposes a reporting obligation here
1

Section 21.3(b) provides: “The holder of a type certificate ... must report any
26 defect in any product or article manufactured by it that has left its quality system and
that it determines could result in any of the occurrences listed in paragraph (c) of this
27 section.” 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b).
28

2

As stated in the May 7, 2013 Order, this ruling does not relate to Plaintiffs’
claim of failure to warn in the context of MDHI’s training of Plaintiff Younan.
-2-

09cv2136-WQH-BGS

1

because one of the occurrences in Section 21.3(c) ‘could’ occur as a result
of the alleged autorotation problem. Thus, Plaintiffs claim, MDHI had to
report a ‘defect’—not just an accident.

2
3

This argument fails for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs offer no
evidence that MDHI had notice of an alleged defect from any source other
than the prior accidents, which MDHI had no obligation to report.
Second, even if MDHI did have notice of a problem, it had no reporting
obligation under Section 21.3(b) because the alleged problems related to
autorotation do not involve any of the occurrences listed in Section
21.3(c). Accordingly, the Court should preclude Plaintiffs from arguing
that MDHI had any duty to warn under Section 21.3(b).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Id. at 2-3 (citation omitted).
II.

Discussion
Section 21.3(b) provides: “The holder of a type certificate ... must report any

defect in any product or article manufactured by it that has left its quality system and
that it determines could result in any of the occurrences listed in paragraph (c) of this
section.” 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b). Section 21.3(c) provides:

14

(c) The following occurrences must be reported as provided in paragraph[]
... (b) of this section: ....

15

(4) A malfunction, failure, or defect of a propeller control system.

16

(5) A propeller or rotorcraft hub or blade structural failure. ...

17

(8) A significant aircraft primary structural defect or failure caused
by any autogenous condition (fatigue, understrength, corrosion,
etc.).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(9) Any abnormal vibration or buffeting caused by a structural or
system malfunction, defect, or failure.
(10) An engine failure.
(11) Any structural or flight control system malfunction, defect, or
failure which causes an interference with normal control of the
aircraft for which derogates the flying qualities.
14 C.F.R. § 21.3(c).
The Court finds that, based upon the evidence in the record, a reasonable jury
could find that there was a “defect” in the helicopter at issue that “could result” in any
of the occurrences listed above which MDHI was required to report to the FAA
pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b). The issue of causation is a question of fact for the jury.
See Kisbey v. State of Cal., 36 Cal. 3d 415, 422 (1984) (“[N]egligence and causation are
-3-

09cv2136-WQH-BGS

1 questions of fact for the jury.”) (citation omitted).
2 III.

Conclusion

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion in limine to exclude evidence of a

4 duty to warn arising under 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(b) is DENIED. No later than May 28,
5 2013, the parties shall file any new jury instruction(s) proposed in light of the ruling in
6 this Order.
7 DATED: May 22, 2013
8
9

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

09cv2136-WQH-BGS