Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca1-13-01640/USCOURTS-ca1-13-01640-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 13-1640

ZULAIKA RODRIGUEZ DELGADO,

T.I.O.R., a minor, and J.M.B., a minor,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

AERO INVESTMENT CORP.,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,

Souter,* Associate Justice,

and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Álvaro R. Calderón Jr., Adriana G. Sánchez-Parés, Francisco J.

Ortiz-García, and Álvaro R. Calderón Jr. LLP, for appellants.

Jaime F. Agrait Llado, Eric D. Griffin Jr., Agrait-Llado Law

Firm, and Griffin Serrano, P.A., for appellees.

March 4, 2015

* Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the

Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-1640 Document: 00116806455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 Entry ID: 5890453
SOUTER, Associate Justice. A small passenger plane flying

from the Dominican Republic met with a violent storm and crashed

into shallow seas off Puerto Rico, killing the pilot and all five

passengers. The appellants are the pilot's child, the child's

mother, and another of her children, against whom the district

court entered summary judgment in their diversity jurisdiction

negligence action against Aero Investment Corporation, which had

installed an allegedly defective magneto in the plane's engine and

performed subsequent maintenance work on it. Aero tested the

engine's performance after the installation and at least two more

times, with a possible third test said to have been done just

before the fatal flight. In ruling on Aero's motion for summary

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the district

court analyzed a number of contentious issues, in the course of

which it accepted Aero's claim that appellants had not furnished

evidence from which a trier of fact could find a causal connection

between any fault on Aero's part and the crash of the plane. We

affirm on the same ground of lack of causation, albeit on a theory

pressed in the district court and before us but upon which the

district court did not rely in granting summary judgment.

We review summary judgment de novo, under the familiar

standard that views the evidentiary record in the light most

legitimately favorable to the party against whom judgment is

sought, in determining whether there is no genuine dispute about

-2-

Case: 13-1640 Document: 00116806455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 Entry ID: 5890453
material facts entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter

of law. Genereux v. Raytheon Co., 754 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir. 2014). 

Despite myriad factual disagreements on subsidiary issues, the

evidence bearing on the standard requirement of proving proximate

cause between any negligence and injury, see P.R. Laws Ann. tit.

31, § 5141; Vázquez–Filippetti v. Banco Popular de P.R., 504 F.3d

43, 49 (1st Cir. 2007), may be described in the manner most

favorable to the appellants fairly succinctly.

The plane was owned by a corporation not a party to this

appeal. Another third party reconditioned two engine magnetos,

devices that produce the sparks that fire the plane's engines. The

left magneto suffered from defective internal wiring when inspected

after the accident, thus carrying the potential to fire the engine

erratically and weaken its power. Aero installed the magnetos,1

but there is no evidence that Aero or anyone else was aware of

inadequate wiring in the magneto and no evidence that an

1

 It is unclear whether appellants press a negligence claim

based on improper installation, as opposed to inadequate

maintenance, of the faulty magneto. In any event, summary judgment

was appropriate on an installation theory. Although appellants'

expert witness, Colin Sommer, testified that the magneto was

"improperly" installed, that otherwise unexplained conclusory

statement is inadequate to raise a factual issue of negligent

installation. See Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 56 (1st

Cir. 2008). Moreover, although appellants' experts testified that

if Aero had examined the left magneto on installation (presumably

by disassembling it to some extent) it would have found the wiring

defect, there was no testimony or other evidence showing an

industry standard of reasonable care that required an installer

like Aero to do a partial disassembly of the independent

reconditioner's work before making the installation. See id.

-3-

Case: 13-1640 Document: 00116806455 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 Entry ID: 5890453
imperfection had manifested itself in any way in the course of

periodic tests by Aero and some 250 hours of flying time between

installation and the period immediately preceding the crash. 

Shortly before the plane went down, the pilot spoke by radio with

a Puerto Rican traffic controller, but his stated reason was only

to obtain permission to deviate from his original flight plan, to

avoid severe weather ahead. After the pilot received authorization

to do that, and the plane descended to a lower altitude, witnesses

on the ground heard what they took to be irregular firing of the

engine. Although the pilot made no further radio contact, the

plane then flew into the storm itself, which was so violent that

control was impossible. The crash in shallow water followed.

In the district court and before us, much effort was devoted

to arguing whether there was a basis in evidence to claim (or

dispute) that engine malfunction caused the pilot to allow the

plane to veer suddenly into the destructive weather that he had

obviously meant to avoid. But there is no need to resolve this

issue, which is relevant only if appellants have evidence

connecting the source of any engine malfunction with a negligent

failure to discover it on Aero's part; and they have no such

evidentiary basis in the record.

The nub of the negligence action against Aero is that its

tests of the running engine were inadequate, and appellants make

two such claims. The first of them, that Aero failed to perform a

-4-

Case: 13-1640 Document: 00116806455 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 Entry ID: 5890453
necessary inspection just prior to the fatal flight, rests on

expert witness, Luis Irizarry-Porrata, who testified that, after

the crash was known, he saw an Aero employee making entries in the

required record-keeping book to document the inspection claimed to

have been made days before. Irizarry-Porrata took this to indicate

that the inspection had never been completed. Although it is

questionable whether this conclusion is adequately supported,2

 this

issue, too, need not be resolved, owing to the insufficiency of the

causation evidence made apparent in the course of presenting the

second claim of testing inadequacy.

The second claim turns on a dispute over whether, in doing the

testing, the Aero employees ran the engine at 1800 r.p.m. (the

speed suggested by the plane's manufacturer) or at 2200 r.p.m. (as

suggested by the engine's manufacturer). The expert witness Sommer

understood the evidence to indicate 1800 r.p.m. had been used, at

which speed he found it less "likely" that the defective magneto

would produce the irregular ignition that would indicate a defect. 

But he also testified that sparking irregularity would be

"intermittent at most" even at the higher speed and that Aero's

employees could have run the engine at 2200 r.p.m. without

producing any noticeable irregularity. All he could say was that

an irregularity would be "more likely" to show up at the higher

2

 The evidence was that the book entries were pre-existing

computer entries, then being printed out and posted in the book. 

-5-

Case: 13-1640 Document: 00116806455 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 Entry ID: 5890453
speed, but he offered no opinion on how likely it would show up at

any speed. So far as the evidence shows, the likelihood of an

irregular spark during a standard test duration might have been one

in a hundred at 1800 r.p.m. and two in a hundred at 2200 r.p.m. 

The record provides no way to tell.

Thus, even if we assume for argument that Aero tested at 1800

r.p.m. or failed to complete a test or both, there is no evidence

from which a trier of fact could conclude by a preponderance that

a test viewed by the expert as adequate, complete, and consistent

with due care at 2200 r.p.m. would have alerted Aero's people to a

defect and led them to refuse to approve the plane's operation. 

Consequently, even if we assume that Aero failed to exercise due

care, there is no evidence that due care would, to a degree of

preponderance, have avoided the result.

We think Aero's counsel is correct to argue that this absence

of causal evidence places this case in the same posture as the one

described by the Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett:

In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates

the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for

discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to

make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to that party's case, and on which

that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In

such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any

material fact, since a complete failure of proof

concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's

case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law

because the nonmoving party has failed to make a

sufficient showing on an essential element of her case

with respect to which she has the burden of proof.

-6-

Case: 13-1640 Document: 00116806455 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 Entry ID: 5890453
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The order of summary judgment is affirmed.

-7-

Case: 13-1640 Document: 00116806455 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 Entry ID: 5890453