Stites & Harbison has filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the National Aircraft Finance Association in support of a petition to the United States Supreme Court. In the petition, a Florida aircraft owner/lessor has asked that a decision by the Florida Supreme Court be reversed in favor of a federal rule precluding liability for aircraft owners and lessors, unless in actual possession or control of the aircraft. See Aerolease of America, Inc. v Vreeland, U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 11-728, filed December 12, 2011, seeking review of Vreeland v. Ferrer, 71. So.3d 70 (Fla. 2011).
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that an aircraft owner/lessor was vicariously liable for injuries to an aircraft passenger resulting from the negligence of an aircraft operator, even though the aircraft owner/lessor had no actual possession or control over the aircraft at the time of the accident flight. The Florida Supreme Court applied the Florida Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, a doctrine developed by the Florida courts to assure financial responsibility by owners of potentially dangerous vehicles should the vehicle be involved in an accident. In doing so, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute (49 U.S.C. § 44112) that precludes liability for aircraft owners and lessors who are not in actual possession or control of the aircraft, applies only to injuries to persons outside the aircraft and on the ground, as opposed to aircraft passengers or to persons in other aircraft in the air.
Similar state liability rules that might otherwise impose liability on owners and lessors of aircraft, either based on statute or the result of common law court decisions, have generally not been applied to aircraft owners/lessors in view of the federal statute. The Florida Supreme Court based its limiting interpretation of the federal statute on the legislative history from 1948, which indicated that Congress was particularly concerned at that time about state statutes which remained in effect in many states from the advent of aviation, relating specifically to injury to persons or property on the ground. For this reason, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that Congress only intended to preclude liability of aircraft owners/lessors for injury to persons or property on the ground, and did not intend to preclude liability of aircraft owners/lessors for injury to passengers or persons in the air.
In its petition for certiorari, the aircraft owner/lessor asked the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the federal statute broadly to preclude liability for aircraft owners/lessors for all liability, regardless of whether in person injured was the air, on the ground, or within or without the aircraft, in those cases in which the aircraft owner/lessor is not an actual possession or control the aircraft. This position is based upon the current language of the federal statute, which, when read in the absence of the legislative history considered by the Florida Supreme Court, has been consistently interpreted by federal courts to broadly preclude such liability for aircraft owners/lessors. The aircraft owner/lessor in this case is arguing that there is a conflict between these federal court decisions and the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, which can only be resolved by the U. S. Supreme Court.
The petitioner has been joined by two amicus curiae briefs that also contended that the U. S. Supreme Court should resolve this conflict. One of the briefs has been filed by the Aviation Working Group, an organization made up of aircraft manufacturers and other companies in the aviation business. That brief contends that there is a conflict between the decisions of federal courts and the Florida Supreme Court, which requires the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. Another brief, prepared by the undersigned, has been filed on behalf of the National Aircraft Finance Association, and it contends that the Florida Supreme Court decision should be reversed because federal law (and not state law) should determine those persons or entities having responsibility for the safe operation of aircraft. Since the federal aviation regulations impose the duty for safety on aircraft operators, not owners/lessors unless in actual possession or control of the aircraft, any state law that seeks to impose a duty for safety on owners/lessors not in actual possession or control of the aircraft is an attempt by the states to regulate aviation safety, a field which is exclusively occupied by federal law.
The U. S. Supreme Court is expected to decide on February 21st whether to accept this case for review. If the case is accepted, then it is likely that a decision by the U. S. Supreme Court will provide significant guidance to all involved in aviation liability matters as to whether federal law or state law establishes the legal duties and requirements upon which liability claims may be based. If the Supreme Court does not accept this case, then those involved in aviation liability claims should be aware that states such as Florida that have adopted the common law dangerous instrumentality rule for aircraft, and other states which still have 1930s era aircraft owner financial responsibility statutes on the books, may still impose liability rules on aircraft owners/lessors for injuries to persons or property in the air or within the aircraft, even if not in actual possession or control of the aircraft. An appendix setting out those states still having these statutes in force is attached to the amicus brief filed by the undersigned on behalf of the National Aircraft Finance Association.
A copy of respondent’s brief in opposition to the petition and petitioner’s reply briefs in support of the petition are also attached for you reference.
