Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00072/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00072-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ANN L. BALLENGER, )

individually and as )

Administratrix of the )

Estate of Thomas )

Ballenger, deceased, and )

MARY ANNA WOEPPEL, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:09cv72-MHT

) (WO) 

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT )

CORPORATION, a foreign )

Corporation, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

On November 4, 2011, this court denied a motion for

summary judgment filed by defendant Aeronautical

Accessories, Inc. (AAI). The court concluded that there

was a genuine dispute of a material fact: whether the

AAI-manufactured windshield fractured after being hit by

a hawk. Ballenger v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., 2011 WL

5358552 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2011). AAI now moves for

reconsideration of that decision.

Case 2:09-cv-00072-MHT-SRW Document 279 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 4
* AAI’s second ground for reconsideration is that the

summary-judgment opinion emphasized that the plaintiffs’

expert reports were produced without examination of the

windshield. AAI objects to this true proposition because

it finds the point misleading. While it is also true

that these same experts subsequently examined the

windshield and concluded that Sikorsky’s throttle design

caused the crash, the court’s purpose in mentioning the

objected-to fact was to put the plaintiffs’ initial

expert reports in context.

AAI’s final objection is to the use of Sikorsky

produced reports as evidence to support plaintiffs’

(continued...)

2

AAI’s primary argument is that the court improperly

relied on a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

“safety recommendation.” NTSB Safety Recommendation,

Doc. No. 156-3. The court notes that AAI’s reply brief

did not object to plaintiffs’ submission of the NTSB

safety recommendation. While a federal statute, 49

U.S.C. § 1154(b), limits the types of NTSB reports that

may be used in civil litigation and there is a question

as to whether the court relied on it inappropriately,

AAI’s objection comes too late. 

Even if the NTSB safety recommendation is

inadmissible, the court would reach the same conclusion.*

Case 2:09-cv-00072-MHT-SRW Document 279 Filed 11/18/11 Page 2 of 4
*(...continued)

claims. But, as the court explained in its prior

opinion, the summary-judgment inquiry is directed at

whether the evidence in the record creates a genuine

dispute of material fact; the identity of the party who

submitted that evidence is immaterial to whether the

evidence can be examined. Ballenger, 2011 WL at *2 n.*.

3

In addition to the reasons given in the summary-judgment

opinion, there is considerable evidence in the record

establishing a genuine dispute about whether the AAImanufactured windshield fractured. To take a few

examples:

! C h r i s t o p h e r L o w e n s t e i n , S i k o r s k y ’ s

representative on the accident investigation

team, stated that the cause of the crash was the

“rupture of the windshield.” Lowenstein

Deposition, Doc. No. 160-6, at 3. Lowenstein

further concluded that the throttle-control

malfunction could have been corrected but for

the windshield rupture. Id. at 3-4. According

to Lowenstein, the windshield failure and

“subsequent on-rush of 140-knot wind ...

disoriented the pilot ... [and] prevented them

from responding as a normal pilot would.” Id.

at 9.

! Another Sikorsky expert, Rocco DiGenova,

testified that AAI’s cast acrylic windshield is

inferior to the original windshield installed by

Sikorsky. DiGenova Deposition, Doc. No. 160-4,

at 4.

Case 2:09-cv-00072-MHT-SRW Document 279 Filed 11/18/11 Page 3 of 4
! Sikorsky pilot consultant Charles Evans

attributed the accident, in part, to “the

corrupted pilot environment due to wind flow and

noise affecting both pilots.” Evans Report,

Doc. No. 160-8, at 7. Evans’s report

hypothesized a crash scenario in which the

“windshield is breeched” following the hawk

strike. Id. at 6.

! Doctor Moore testified that the AAI windshield

had been improperly approved by the FAA and that

its failure was the cause of the accident.

Moore Deposition, Doc. No. 183-3, at 6.

* * *

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant

Aeronautical Accessories, Inc.’s motion for

reconsideration (Doc. No. 209) is denied.

DONE, this the 18th day of November, 2011.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00072-MHT-SRW Document 279 Filed 11/18/11 Page 4 of 4