P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3878

___________ J OS E P H E L AS S AAD,

A ppel l ant

v. IN D E P E N D E N C E A IR , IN C .; DEL TA AI R LI NES , I NC.

_________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 02328) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d m u n d V . L u d w ig

__________________________ A r gued J anuary28, 2010
B efore: R E N D E L L and JO R D A N , C i rcui tJudg es, and A M B R O SE , D i s t r i ctJ udge*.
*T he Hon o r a b l e Don e t t a W

. Am b r o s e , J u d g e o f t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor the W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 ( Fi l ed: M ay12, 2010)

_________ E u g e n e F . J a rr e ll, I II , E s q . [ ARGUE D] 211 N or t h O l i ve St r eet M edi a, PA 19063 C ouns el f orAppel l ant
J o n a th a n M . S te rn , E s q . [ ARGUE D] Sc h n a d e rHarr i s o n Se g a l & Le wi s LLP 750 9t h St r eet , N W , Sui t e 550 W as hi ngt on, D C 20006 C ouns el f orAppel l ee I ndepende nce Ai rI

nc.

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
Jo sep h E lassaa d ap p ea ls from an orde r gra n ti n g su m m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f In d e p e n d e n c e A ir, In c ., w ith re sp e c t to h is n e g lig e n c e c la im f

o r in ju rie s s u sta in e d w h e n h e f e ll w h ile di s embar ki ng fr om an ai rpl ane atthe Phi l adel phi a I nt ernat i onal A i rpor t

. H i s appea l r equi r es us t o cons i dert he ext entt o w hi ch t he Feder al A vi at i on A ct (“ A vi at i on A ct ”) , 49 U

. S. C

. § 40101 ets eq. , pr eempt s s t at e l aw conce r ni ng t or t claim s ar i s i ng fr om an ai rcarr i er ’ s conducti n over s eei ng the d i s embar kat i on of pas s enger s . A l t hough w e s t at ed i n A bdul l ah v. A m er i can3 Ai r l i n e s , I

nc. , 1 81 F. 3d 363, 365 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , thatthe A vi at i on A ctpr eempt s “the ent i r e fi el d of avi at i on s afe t y ” fr om s t at e r egul at i on, w e hol d t hat t he “fi el d of avi at i on s afe t y ” does noti ncl ude a f

l i ghtcr ew ’ s over s i g h t of the di s embar kat i on of p a ss e n g e rs on ce a plane has co m e t o a co m plet e st op ati ts d e s tin a tio n . A bdul l ah t her efor e d o es not contr ol t he i ns t ant cas e. W e al s o hol d t hatthe A vi at i on A ctand the r egul at i ons p ro m u lg a ted th e re u n d e r d o n o t p re e m p t s ta te to rt law w ith r es pect t o s uch negl i gence cl ai m s . M or eover , w e conc l ude that the f ed era ll yen ac ted A irC arrier A cc e ss A ct (“A C A A ”), 49 U

. S. C

. § 41705 et s eq. , and i t s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons do notco n tr o l t he s t andar d of ca r e fr om t he s t andpoi ntof ai r l i ne sa f e ty . A s a r e su lt, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e sta n d a rd o f c a re in E l a s s a a d ’ s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m i s n o tp r e e mp t e d b yf e d e r a l l a w, and w e w i l l r ever s e the gr antof s um m aryj udgm entfor In d e p e n d e n c e a n d re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . I

. B ackgr ound
E las sa a d ’s r ig h t leg w a s a m p u tate d a b o v e th e k n e e in 1 9 7 8 , an d h e re li es o n a pa iro f c rutch es to w alk. O n F eb rua ry 9, 2004, he boar ded a B os t on- t o- Phi l adel phi a fl i ghtoper at ed by I ndepende nce unde r t he auspi ces of D el t a A i r L i nes . T he fl i ght w as o n a D o rnier 3 2 8 , a sm all co m m u ter jet , w h ich p asse n g ers b o a rd e d f

ro m th e tar m a c v ia a 3 1⁄2 -f o o t lo n g f

lig h t o f ste p s b u ilt i nt o t he doorof the ai r cr af t. A ft erarr i vi ng athi s s eatw i t hout i nci dent , E l as s aad at t empt ed t o pl ace hi s crut ches i n t he o v e rh e a d b in , w h ich w a s n o t lo n g e n o u g h to a c c o m m o d a te t hem. A dr i en Lavoi e, t he l one fl i ghtatt endanton t he pl ane, t hen t ook t he crut ches and s t ow ed t hem i n t he baggage ar ea fo r the d u ra tio n o f

th e f lig h t.A t his de p o sit ion , E lassaa d estim a te d th a t the step s w ere 1 betw een e l even a nd t hi r t een i nches w i de, and he expl ai ned that he h ad n ot pr eviousl ytak en n ote of theirnarr ow ness becau se des cendi ng s t ai r s us i ng crut ches i s m or e di ffi cul tthan as cendi ng t hem. H e s t at ed thathe w as appr ehens i ve of f al l i ng beca us e the s t ai r s w er e narr ow and he somet i m es has di ffi cul t ym ai nt ai ni ng his balance on t i gh tst ai rcas es. A ccor di ng t o t he r el evantA C A A

- i m pl ement i ng r egul at i on, 2 airl ine p erso n n el w o u ld n o t hav e b ee n p erm itted to ca rry E la s s a a d d o w n th e s ta ir s u n le s s th e re w a s a n e m e rg e n c y . See 14 C

. F. R

. § 382. 39( a) ( 2) ( 2004)

. T he D epart m entof T r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e v i s e d t h e r e g u l a t i o n s i mp l e me n t i n g t h e AC AA o n M a y1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , a f te r E la s s a a d ’s a c c id e n t. See N o n d isc rim in a ti o n o n th e B a sis o f D isa b ili tyin A ir T ra v e l, 73 Fed. R eg. 2 7 , 6 1 4 ( M ay13, 2008)

. A l l r efe r ence s t o and q u o tat ion s o f th o se re g u lat ion s in the b o d yo f th is op inion are 4 U p o n lan d in g in P h ilad e lp h ia, L a v o ie a sk e d E las sa a d to sta yin h is se a t u n til th e o th e r pa ss e n g e rs h a d d e p lan e d . L a v o ie th e n re tu rn e d th e c ru tch e s to E las sa a d , w h o u se d th e m to appr oach the ai r cr aftdoor

. A tt hat poi nt , des pi t e havi ng boar ded t he air craftbyt he sam e st ai rcas e, E l assaad no t i ced f or the fir st t i m e thatt he s t ai r s w er e narr ow . T he s t ai r cas e had a r ai l i ng on 1 t he l efts i de, butnoton the r i ght

. T hough E l as s aad r ecogni zed t hathe “ne eded as s i s t ance ” t o des cend the s t ai r cas e, A pp. 117, he chos e not t o r eques t hel p beca us e he bel i eved t he onl yai d the a irl i ne co uld offer w ou l d b e t o carryhim do w n the st ai rs . E lassaa d t es t i fi ed thathe w oul d have de cl i ned s uch as s i s t ance d u e to h is p e rc e p tio n o f it as d e m e a n in g . H o w e v e r, h e w o u ld 2b a se d o n th e p re -a m e n d m e n t tex t, w h ich w a s in e f f e c t at a ll t i m es r el evant t o t hi s cas e. T he cur r ent pr ohi bi t i on on carr y i ng a p a s s e n g e r a p p e a rs a t 1 4 C .F .R . § 3 8 2 .1 0 1 (2 0 0 9 ). D uri ng his dep osi t i on , L avo i e st at ed that he ha d to ld 3 E l as s aad a boutt he avai l abi l i ty of a w heel chai r( t hough E l as s aad deni es t hi s ) , but not about t he avai l abi l i t y of an e l ectr oni c l i ftor a “s t r ai ghtback. ” A “s t r ai ght back” i s s i m i l ar i n form t o a hand t ruck. 5 have a cce pt ed the as s i s t ance of a w heel chai roran el ectr oni c l i ft h a d h e k n o wn t h a t t h i s t yp e o f a s s i s t a n c e wa s a v a i l a b l e t o h i m. 3
A s E las sa a d b e g a n to d e sc e n d th e sta irs, h e lo st h is b a lan c e a n d f

e ll o f f th e rig h t sid e o f

th e st a irc a se , strik in g h is sh o u ld e r o n th e p a v e m e n t. A c c o rd in g to h is c o m p lain t, th is re su lted in se v e re in

ju rie s, in c lu d in g to rn c a rtilag e in h is sh o u lder tha t r eq u ir ed su rgica l r ep air.
E l as s aad c om m ence d thi s l aw s ui ti n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Phi l adel phi a C oun ty , Penns y l vani a, a d v a n c in g th re e se p a ra te n e g lig e n c e c laim s u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia law ag ains t I n d ep en d en ce an d D elt a: th at th e a ir li n es w ere negl i genti n ( 1) oper at i ng an ai r cr aft m ade defe ct i ve bydes i gn f e a tu re s o f th e a irc ra f

t s tep s; (2 ) f

a ili n g to in sp e c t an d m a in tain t he s t eps ; and ( 3) fai l i ng t o offe rand r enderper s onal as s i s t ance t o E l as s aad a s he di s embar ked fr om t he j et

. T he cas e w as rem o v ed to the U n ite d S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a on M ay18, 2005, bas ed on di ver s i t yof ci t i zens hi p. S h or t l yther eaf t er , on J une 14, 2005, E l as s aadW h en r efe r r i ng t o t he A C A A

- i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons 4 h e re a f te r, w e w ill s im p ly sa y“ th e A C A A re g u la tio n s .” 6 vo lunt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed D el t a fr om t he s ui t

. I ndepende nce then m ov ed for part i al sum m ary j ud gm ent w i t h r espect t o th e fi rs t cl ai m . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed I ndepende n ce ’ s m ot i on as unoppos ed. B yt hatt i m e, E l as s aad ha d w i t hdr aw n hi s s econd c laim , w h ich w a s b a se d o n In d e p e n d e n c e ’s a lleg e d f a ilu re to i ns pectand mai nt ai n th e step s, l eavi ng, i n the w or ds of the D i s t r i ctC our t , “the s ol e l i abi li t yi s s ue [a s ] w hether [ In d e p e n d e n c e ] n e g lig e n tlyf a iled to a ss ist [ E las sa a d ] in dis em barki ng t he airplane, i ncludi ng , w i t ho ut l im i t at i on s, m a k in g a v a ila b le a ll a p p ro p ri a te s a f e ty m e a s u re s a n d d e v ic e s .” A pp. 3.
I ndepend ence m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton E l as s aad’ s r emai ni ng cl aim , ar gui ng t hatt he contr ol l i ng sta n d a rd o f c a re , d icta ted b yf e d e ra l law , o b lig a tes a n a irline to pr ovi de as s i s t ance onl yupon r eques t , and thati ti s undi s put ed t h a tE l a s s a a d d i d n o ta s k f o ra s s i s t a n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y, I ndepe ndence ar gued thatt he r egul at i ons i m pl ement i ng the A C A A , w hi ch addr es s a i rc a rr i e r s ’ c o n ductt ow ar d t he di s abl ed,

4 s ee 14 C

. F

. R

. §§ 382. 1–. 70 ( 2004) , pr eempts t at e l aw n e g li g e n c e sta n d a rd s. T h e A C A A re g u latio n s re q u ire a ir carr i er s t o “pr ovi de as s i s t ance re q u est ed byoron behal f of qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual s w i t h a di s abi l i t y , oroffe r ed byai rcarr i er per s onnel and ac cept ed byqual i fi ed i ndi vi dual s w ith a di s abi l i t y , i n enpl ani ng and depl ani ng. ” 14 C

. F. R

. § 382. 39( a)T he provis i on s o f § 38 2. 39 (a) t hat are pert i nen tt o thi s case 5 curr entl yapp ear i n 1 4 C

. F

. R

. § 3 82 .9 5 (a ) (200 9), and i m po se r equi r ement s t hatar e subst ant i vel yi dent i cal t o the form er § 3 8 2 .3 9 (a ). T hat o bl i gat i on curr ent l yappea r s i n 14 C

. F. R

. § 382. 41( c) 6 (2 0 0 9 ). 7 (20 0 4 ). N eith er the A C A A n o r i ts r eg u lat ion s ex p resslyreq u ir e

5 ai rcarr i er s t o offe ras s i s t ance , an d E l as s aad made no s uch re q u e st f o r a s s is ta n c e . N o r d o th e A C A A re g u latio n s o b lig a te carr i er s t o i nform a di s abl ed pas s en g er of avai l abl e as s i s t i ve m ea su res u n less the p asse n g er states the n ee d fo r a w h ee lcha ir

. See 1 4 C

. F

. R

. § 3 8 2

. 4 5 (a)(2) (2 0 0 4 ). 6
E l as s aad r es pon d ed t o I ndepende nce’ s m ot i on for su m m a ry ju d g m e n t b ya ss e rtin g th a t th e A C A A a n d its regul at i on s w ere i ntended on l yt o p reventdis cri m i nati on against di sab l ed pas s enger s , nott o es t abl i s h s t andar ds fort he s afe oper at i on of an a i r cr aft

. H e ar gued thatai rcarr i er s coul d be h e ld liab le f

o r f a il in g to a f

f irm a tiv e lyo f

f e r a ss ista n c e to d isab led p asse n g ers, n o tw ith stan d ing the A C A A , if th at fa il u re compromi s ed pas s engers afe ty . E l as s aad not ed t hatthe Feder al A viat i on A dm i nis t rat i on (“FA A ”), w hich has the aut ho ri t yto e sta b lish a ir sa f

e tysta n d a rd s, h a s n o t p ro m u lg a ted a n ysa f e ty regul at i on s descr i bing w hat, i f any , assi st ance a i r carr i ers m ust offe rpas s enger s w hen depl ani ng. I n t he abs ence of a c o n tro lli n g f

e d e ra l sa f

e tyre g u latio n , E las sa a d a rg u e d , s tate negl i gence l aw governs an ai rcarr i er ’ s dutyof ca r e i n t hat situati on , and t he fa i l ure of Indep end ence to off er hi m aid8 c o n s t i tu t e d n e g l i g e n c e u n d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a c o mm o n l a w. A l t ernat ive l y , E l as s aad a r gued that , i f the A vi at i on A ctdoes c o n t r o l , t h e g e n e r a l s t a n d a r d o f c a r e s e tf

o r t h i n 1 4 C

. F

. R. § 91. 13, w hi ch pr ohi bi t s carr i er s fr om oper at i ng an ai r cr afti n a “ca r el es s orr eckl es s m anner , ” i m pos ed a dutyo f ca re on I ndepende nce t o offe rhi m depl ani ng as s i s t ance and thatthe ai r l i ne cons equent l ybr eac hed thatdut yw hen i tfai l ed t o offe r hi m s uch as s i s t ance . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, un d e r o u r h o ld in g in A bdul l ah , fede r al l aw di ct at ed the s t andar d o f car e for E l as s aa d’ s negl i gence s ui t

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed I ndepen d e n c e ’ s vi ew of the appl i cabl e s t andar d of ca r e, as found i n t he A C A A r egul at i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he A C A A and i t s r egul at i ons i m pos e no affi r m at i ve dutyt o offe r as sist an ce t o a di s abl ed ai r l i ne pas s enger , and that , even i f the sta n d a rd u n d e r 14 C .F .R . § 9 1 .1 3 a p p lied , E las sa a d h a d f a iled to “poi nt [] t o cas el aw orexpertt es t i m onyt o estab l i s h thatt he fai l ur e of I ndependence t o offe ras s i s t ance t o [El as s aad] cons t i tut ed ca r el es s orr eckl es s conduct

. ” A pp. 6- 7. T he D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted In d e p en d en ce ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t, an d E las sa a d f iled a tim e lya p p e a l.
I I

. J ur i s di ct i on and St andar d of R evi ew Ind ep en d en ce rem o v ed the p rese n t acti o n to f ed er al co u rt u n d e r 28 U .S .C

. § 1 4 4 1 . T h e D istric t C o u rt e x e rc ise d d iv e rsity j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1332. O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es u n d er 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. W e re v iew d e n o v o d is tr ictco u rt o r d e r s g ra n tin g o r d e n y in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See Levy v

. St er l i ng H

oldi ng C o. , 5 4 4 F

. 3 d 4 9 3 , 5 0 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. We9 al s o exer ci s e de novo r evi ew of a pr eempt i on det erm i nat i on, as it is a q u e s tio n o f

la w . S ee H

or n v. Thorat ec Corp. , 376 F. 3d 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).
Sum ma r yj u d g me n ti s p r o p e rwhe r e “ t h e p l e a d i n g s , the d isc o v e rya n d d isc lo su re m a ter ials o n f ile, a n d a n ya f

f id a v its s how t h a t t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a n y ma t e r i a l f a ct and t hatt he movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R

. C i v. P

. 56( c)

. B eca us e s um m aryj udgm entw as ent er ed a g a i n s t E la s s a a d , w e v ie w a n yd is p u te d f a c ts in h is f

a v o r. See B r ew er v. Q uakerStat e O i lR ef

. C or p. , 7 2 F

. 3 d 3 2 6 , 3 3 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ).
I I I

. D i s cus s i on O n ap p ea l, E lassaa d ch all en g es th e D is tri ct C o u rt ’s det erm i nat i on t hat t he A C A A and i t s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons p re e m p t s tate n e g lig e n c e law w ith re sp e c t to a n a ir c a rrie r’s d u ty t o offe r ai d t o di s abl ed pas s enger s w hen depl ani n g . E la s s aad as s er t s t hats t at e negl i gence l aw governs an ai rcarr i er ’ s dut yof car e unders uch ci r cumst ance s , or i n t he al t ernat i ve, t hati f our hol di ng i n A bdul l ah di ct at es t hatt her e i s fed era l pr eempt i on, then th e s ta n d a rd o f c are is th e “ ca reless o r reck less” stan d ard es t abl i s hed by14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 13.
In d e p e n d e n c e a rg u e s th a t w h e th e r o r n o t A bdul l ah appl i es , t he A C A A and i t s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons “pr eempt sta t e l aw on ai rcarr i eri nt er act i on w i t h pas s enger s w i t h a d isa b ili ty .” A p p e llee ’s B r. at 7 . In d e p e n d e n c e a ltern a tiv e ly u rg e s th a t A bdul l ah “r emai ns good l aw , ext ends t o boar di ng and d isem b ark ing , an d ap p li es in this case , ” b u t th at th e lev el of ca re10 pr ovi ded w as above the “c ar el es s orr eckl es s ” s t andar d i m pos ed b y§ 9 1 .1 3

. I

d. at5.
W e agr ee w i t h E l as s aad’ s m ai n cont ent i on, namel y , t hat hi s com m on l aw negl i gence cl ai m i s notpr eempt ed byfede r al l aw . W e w i l l expl ai n ourr eas oni ng byaddr es s i ng eac h of the a r g u me n t s ma d e b yI n d e p e n d e n c e o n a p p e a l

. T o d o th i s , we w i l l begi n bydi s cus s i ng ourdeci s i on i n A bdul l ah , t he s cope of i t s h o l d i n g , a n d whyth e i n s t a n tc a s e d o e s n o tf a l l wi t h i n th at s cope. T hen w e w i l l di s cus s w hyt he A vi at i on A ctand the A C A A , and the r egul at i ons i m pl ement i ng t hos e s t atut es , do not p ree m p t th e s tat e law stan d ard o f c are in this ca se. T h ese are iss u e s o f f

irst i m p re ss io n in o u r co u rt, as w e h a v e n o t p re v io u sly c o n sid e re d th e in ter se c tio n o f th e A v iatio n A c t sa f e ty r eg u l at i ons and the A C A A r egul at i ons , orthei rpr oper a p p lic a tio n s in th is c o n te x t. A.
I n A bdul l ah , pas s enger s aboar d an A m er ican A i r l i nes fl i ghtw er e i nj ur ed as a r es ul t of s ever e turbul ence en r out e fr om N ew Y o rk to P u erto R ico. 18 1 F .3 d a t 3 6 5

. T h e p asse n g ers in iti a ted tw o se p a ra te la w su its in th e D istric t C o u rt o f th e V irg in I s l ands agai ns t A m er i can A i r l i nes , w hi ch w er e cons ol i dat ed for tr ia l. I d. T he pas s enger s cl ai m ed t hat t he fl i ght cr ew w as negl i gentas a m at t erof V i r gi n I s l ands l aw both i n fai l i ng t o t ake r eas onabl e pr eca ut i ons t o avoi d, and i n fai l i ng to w arn the p a s s e n g e rs a b o u t, th e tu rb u le n c e . I d. A f ter a ju ryin S a in t C ro ix return ed a v e rdict i n fa v o r of the p asse n g ers, th e tri al co u rt gran ted A m er i can A i r l i nes ’ m ot i on fora new t r i al , on the gr ound t hatt he cour t had i m pr oper l y i ns t ruct ed t he j ury on the11 l ocal s t andar d of car e r ather t han on t he s t andar d pr es cr i bed by th e A v ia tio n A c t. I

d. at366.
A tt he pas s enger s ’ r eques t , t he tr i al cour tthen ce r t i fi ed a tw o- par tques t i on forappea l : “D oes fede r al l aw pr eemptthe s t andar ds forai rs afe t y , butpr es erve St at e and Terr i t or i al damage r emedi es ?” I d. a t 3 6 4 . W e g ran ted in terl o cu tory r ev i e w, a n d a n s wer e d b o t h p a r t s o f t h e q u e s t i o n i n t he aff i r m at i ve. W e hel d thatther e w as “i m pl i ed pr eempt i on of the ent i r e fi el d of avi at i on s afe t y , ” butthat“des pi t e fe deral pr eempt i on of the s t andar ds of car e, s t at e and t err i t or i al damage r emedi es s t i l l exi s t for vi ol at i on of thos e s t andar ds

. ” I d. at365.
A bdul l ah ’ s hol di ng w as gr ounded i n o u rfi ndi ng that C o n g re ss , b ye n a c tin g th e A v iatio n A c t, i n ten d e d “ ‘to p ro m o te s afe t yi n avi at i on and ther ebypr ot ectthe l i ves of per s ons w ho t r avel on boar d ai r cr aft ’” byr es t i ng “s ol e r es pons i bi l i t yfor s u p e rv is in g th e a v ia tio n in d u s tryw ith th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t.” I d. a t 3 6 8 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h is c o n c lu sio n a s to congr es s i onal int entw as pr i m ar i l ys uppor t ed byt he A vi at i on A ct ’ s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y and i t s j udi ci al i nt erpr et at i on i n C i t y of B ur bank v. Lockhee d A i rTer m i na l, I nc. , 4 1 1 U

. S

. 6 2 4 (19 7 3 ). W e not ed thatt he Supr eme C o ur ti n C i t y of B ur bank

had anal y zed the A vi at i on A ct ’ s l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryt o r eac h the concl us i on t hat“C ongr es s ’ s cons ol i dat i on of contr ol of avi at i on i n one age ncyi ndi cat ed i t s i nt ent t o fede r al l y pr eemptavi at i on s afe t y . ” A bdul l ah , 181 F. 3d at369 ( ci t i ng C i t y of B ur bank , 411 U .S . a t 6 3 9 ).
I n A bdul l ah , w e speci fi cal l yfou nd that C on gress in ten d e d th e A d m in is tr a to r o f th e F A A to e x e rc ise “ so le12 di s cr et i on i n r egul at i ng ai r s afe t y ” by ves t i ng t he A dm i ni s t r at or w ith b ro a d r e g u la to ry a u th o ri ty. I d. W e sta ted th a t, t o eff ectuat e t hi s author i t y , t he A dm i ni s t r at or “has i m pl ement ed a c o m p re h e n siv e sy ste m o f ru les a n d re g u latio n s” to p ro m o te f l i g h t s a f e ty. I d. B as ed on the compr ehens i ve r egul at ory s y s t em, w e det erm i ned thatfede r al l aw s o thor oughl yoccupi es th e leg isla tiv e f

ield o f a v iatio n sa f

e tyth a t f e d e ra l law im p lied ly p re e m p ts s ta te re g u la tio n in th a t a re a . I d. at371. O urfi ndi ng of fi el d pr eempt i on not w i t hs t andi ng, w e hel d t hat s t at e comm on l aw r emedi es w er e s t i l l avai l abl e t o the i nj ur ed pas s enger s bas ed on t he s peci fic l anguage of the A vi at i on A ct ’ s s avi ngs and in s u ra n c e c la u s e s . I

d. a t 3 7 5 -7 6 . W e re m a n d e d p ro c e e d in g s to t he tr ial cour tt o det erm i ne w hetherthe j uryi ns t ruct i ons bas ed on V i r gi n I s l ands law nevert hel es s comport ed w i t h t he fe der al s ta n d a rd o f

c a re . I d. at376.
W e di d notconcl ude i n A bdu ll ah t hat the p assengers’ comm o n la w negl i gence cl ai m s themsel ves w er e pr eempt ed; in ste a d , w e d e ter m in e d o n lyth a t th e sta n d a rd o f c a r e u se d in a d ju d ica tin g th o se c laim s w a s p re e m p ted . L o c a l law still governed the ot her negl i gence el ement s ( br eac h, caus at i on, and dam age s) , as w el l as the ch oice and av ai l abil i t yof rem edies

. T hi s w as cons i s t ent w i t h our pr i or obs ervat i on, i n t he cont extof ai rl i ne deregulat i on , that “[i ]t i s highl y un l i kelyth a t C on gress in ten d e d to d e p riv e p a ss e n g e rs o f th e ir c o m m o n law rig h ts to re c o v e r f o r d e a th o r p e rs o n a l in

ju ri e s s u s ta in e d in a irc ra s h e s .” Taj Mahal Trav el

, I nc. v. D el ta A i r l i nes , I

nc. , 164 F. 3d 186, 194 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).
A g a in , A bdul l ah ’ s pr i m ary hol di ng w as t hatfede r al l aw pr eempt ed “t he ent i r e fi el d of avi at i on s afe t y . ” 181 F. 3d at365.13 O f cr i t i cal i m por ther e i s t he fact th at pr ece denti s contr ol l i ng onl yas faras i tgoes . B eca us e the part i es deba te w h ethe rand w hen A bdul l ah appl i es , w e w i l l pr ovi de cl ar i fi cat i on on t hat i s s ue. B.
C our t s have r ecogni zed thr ee s peci es of pr eempt i on: expr es s pr eempt i on, confl i ct pr eempt i on, and fi el d pr eempt i on. E xpr es s pr eempt i on r equi r es t hat C ongr es s ’ s i nt entt o pr eempt b e “ ‘e x p licitlysta ted in th e sta tu te’ s la n g u a g e o r im p licitly cont ained i n i t s s t ructur e and purpos e. ’ ” C ip o llo n e v . L ig g e tt G r oup, I nc. , 5 0 5 U

. S

. 5 0 4 , 5 1 6 (19 9 2 ) (cit ati o n o m itte d ). C o n f lict p re e m p tio n o c c u rs w h e n sta te la w “ a c tu a llyc o n f licts w i t h fede r al l aw . ” I

d. T here i s no b asi s for fi nd i ng that express pr eempt i on or confl i ct pr eempt i on appl i es i n t hi s cas e, and the par t i es do notcont end otherw i s e. T o t he ext entthatpr eempt i on exi s t s i n t hi s cas e, i tm us tbe i n t he form of fi el d pr eempt i on, w hi ch occ ur s w hen a f

i el d i s “r eserv ed forfede r al r egul at i on, l eavi ng no r oom for s t at e re gul at i on, ” and “congr es s i onal i nt ent t o s uper s ede st at e l aw s [i s ] cl earand mani fes t

. ” H o lk v . Sn a p p le B eve r age C or

p. , 575 F. 3d 329, 3 36 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. B oth s t atut es and re g u la tio n s c a n p re e m p t s ta te la w . I d. at339.
I n A bdul l ah , w e f

o u n d th a t th e re w a s im p lied f ield pr eempt i on “of t he ent i r e fi el d of avi at i on s afe t y ” as a r es ul tof t he A vi at i on A ct and i t s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons . 181 F. 3d at 3 6 5 . H o w e v e r, o u r a n a ly sis o f f ield p r e e m p tio n in A bdul l ah

— sp e c ifica lly , the “ f ield ” o f “ a v iatio n sa f

e ty ”

— w a s in t he cont extof i n- fli g hts afe t y . T hi s i s cl earfr om a ca r eful14 r eadi ng of ourdeci s i on. I n des cr i bi ng ourconcl us i on r egar di ng pr eempt i on, w e s t at ed that“fe der al l aw es t abl ishe s t he appl i cabl e s t andar ds of ca r e i n t he fi el d of a ir s a fety , ” and that t he FA A has “s ol e di s cr et i on i n r egul at i ng airsaf ety
. ” I d. at 367, 369 ( emphase s added)

. A s exampl es of w hatw e meantby t he t e r m “ a i r s a f

e t y , ” we n o t e d t h a t a g o a l o f t h e Avi a t i on A ct w as t o r educe “ac ci dent s i n ai rtr ans por t at i on, ” i d. at369 (qu o ti n g 4 9 U

. S

. C

. § 4 4 7 0 1 (c)); w e re fe rr e d to the F A A ’s r egul at i on of “pi l otcert i fi ca ti o n, pi l otpr e- fl i ghtdut i es , pi l ot fl i ghtr es pons ibil it i es , and fl i ghtrul es , ” i d. at369 ( footnot es o m it ted); and w e des cr i bed ca s e l aw r egar di ng i s s ues “s uch as ai r s pace m anage m ent , fl i ghtoper at i ons , and avi at i on noi s e, ” i d. at 37 1 . A cc o rdin g ly , w e ide n ti fied the s tand ard o f c are appl i cabl e i n A bdul l ah as that su p p li ed b y1 4 C

. F

. R

. § 9 1

. 1 3 (a), w hi ch s t at es , w i t h r es pectt o “ [ a] ircra ft oper at i ons f

orthe pur pos e of ai rnavi gat i on , ” that“[n] o per s on m ayoper at e an ai r cr afti n a care l es s orr eckl es s m anners o as t o endange rt he life o r p ro p e rtyo f

a n o th e r.” 1 4 C .F .R . § 9 1 .1 3 (a ); s ee 181 F. 3d at372. T hi s i s , of cour s e, cons i s t entw i t h t he fa ct s of A bdul l ah , in w h ich p lain tiff

s b ro u g h t su it b a se d o n in ju rie s s u sta in e d w h ile the ai r cr aftw as i n t he ai r , t r ans por t i ng pas s enger s fr om N ew Y or k t o Puer t o R i co. 181 F. 3d at366.
O ur di scussi on of t he regul at ory fram ew ork givi ng ri se t o pr eempt i on i n A bdul l ah f o c u se d e x c lu siv e lyo n sa f e tyw h ile a pl ane i s i n t he ai r , fl y i ng betw een i t s or i gi n an d des t i nat i on. O urus e of the t erm “avi at i on s afe t y ” i n A bdul l ah t o des cr i be the f i e l d p r e e m p t e d b y f

e d e r a l l a w w a s th u s l i m i t e d t o i n - a i rs a f e t y. T he s upervi s i on of t he di s embar kat i on pr oces s bya fl i ghtcr ew t her efor e fa l l s out s i de the bounds of w hatw e w er e cons i der i ngT h e p a rties a rg u e a t len g th a b o u t w h e th e r o u r h o ld in g in 7 A bdul l ah s u r v i v e s t h e Su p r e me Cou r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n W ye th v. Le vi ne , 129 S. C t

. 1187 ( 2009)

. B eca us e A bdul l ah does not appl yt o t he fa ct s of t hi s cas e, w e m ake no c om m entr egar di ng w h a t e f f e c t, if a n y , W y e th has on A bdul l ah ’ s c o n t i n u e d v i t a l i t y. A s t he Supr eme C our t has r ece nt l y s t at ed, a corner s t one of 8 its p re e m p tio n ju risp ru d e n c e is “th e a ss u m p tio n th a t th e h isto ric pol i ce pow er s of the Stat es w er e nott o be s uper s eded bythe Feder al A ctunl es s t hatw as t he cl earand mani fes tp u rpo se of C ongr es s . ” W

y e th , 129 S. C t

. at1194- 9 5 (i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). 15 i n A bdul l ah

.

7
A s w e h av e not opi ned as t o t he pr eempt i ve ef fec tof f e d e r a l l a w i n t h i s c o n t e x t , w e m u s td o s o h e r e . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e w i l l cons i deran i s s ue pr es ent ed t o us fort he fi r s tt i m e: w hethert he A vi at i on A ct , t he A C A A , and thei ri m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons pr eempts t at e t or tl aw w i t h r es pectt o acc i dent s t hat occurw hen a pa s s engeri s di s embar ki ng a pl ane. C.
W hen cons i der i ng pr eempt i on of an ar ea of t r adi t i onal s t at e r egul at i on, w e “be gi n ouranal y s i s by ap p ly i ng a pr es um pt i on agai ns tpr eempt i on. ” H o lk , 57 5 F

. 3 d at334 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). It is be y o n d d isp u te th a t ith a s tra d iti o n a lly 8 b ee n the pro v ince o f st ate law to g o v ern d ispu tes i n ca ses w h ere a p lai n ti ff

alle g es th at he fe ll as a resu lto f th e d ef en d an t’ s16 neg li g ence . M or eover , as w e r ecogni zed i n TajMahal , I nc. v. D el ta A i r l i nes , I

nc. , 1 6 4 F .3 d 1 8 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), itis appr opr i at e t o us e a r es t r ai ned appr oach i n r ecogni zi ng t he pr eempt i on of comm on l aw t or t s i n t he fi el d of avi at i on. A l t hough TajM

ahal focus ed on t he i m pact of the A ir li ne D e re g u latio n A c t, w e re a s o n e d th a t p re e m p tio n o f to rt law in avi at i on s houl d be constr ai ned i n par t beca us e “the D epart m ent of Tra ns por t at i on has nei t herthe author i t ynorthe appa r atus req u ir ed to su p erinten d ” tort disp u tes. 1 6 4 F

. 3 d a t 1 9 4 . In addi t i on, as J us t i ce St evens has s t at ed, “‘ C ongr es s di d noti nt end to g iv e a irline s f

re e re in to c o m m it n e g lig e n t a c ts su b jec t o n lyto the s u p erv isi o n o f th e D ep artm en t o f T ran sp o rt ati o n , an ym o re th a n it m e a n t to a llo w a irline s to b re a c h c o n tra c ts w ith i m puni t y , ” bec aus e “the st andar d of ordi nary car e, l i ke contr act p rin c ip les , ‘is a g e n e ra l b a c k g ro u n d ru le a g a in st w h ich a ll ind ivi dual s or dert hei raff ai r s . ’ ” I

d. at192 ( quot i ng A m. A i r l i nes , I

nc. v. W ol ens , 51 3 U

. S

. 21 9, 23 6-37 (19 95 ) ( S t even s, J

. , concurr i ng i n par t and di s s ent i ng i n par t ) )

. E ven though Taj Mahaladdr es s ed a di ffe r ents t atut e than the fede r al l aw s ati s s ue i n t h i s c a s e , w e a d h e r e t o i t s c o n s e r v a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o d a y. A s not ed ab o v e, t o fi nd fi el d pr eempt i on, w e mustfi nd t hatfede r al l aw “l eav[ es ] no r oom for s t at e re gul at i on” and that C o n g re ss h a d a “ c lea r a n d m a n if e st” in ten t to su p e rse d e sta te la w . H o lk , 575 F. 3d at336 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n undert aki ng t hi s i nqui r y , w e cons i dert he l anguage and goal s of the appl i cabl e s t atut e and r egul at i ons , as w el l as anyexpl i ci ts tat em ent s byC ongr es s oran age ncy re g a rd in g p re e m p tio n . I d. at336- 39.17 1.
W hen t he A vi at i on A ctw as enac t ed i n 1958, i t , among o th e r th in g s, c re a ted th e F A A , g a v e th e g o v e rn m e n t a u th o rityto r evi ew ai r far es , i ns t i tut ed a s y s t em for r egi s t er i ng and ce r t i fy i ng a ir c ra f t, a n d s e t s a f

e ty sta n d a rd s f

o r a irc a rr ie rs a n d a ir c ra f t. See Feder al A vi at i on A ctof 1958, Pub. L

. N o. 85- 726, 72 St at

. 731. O n lythe p o rt ion s o f th e A v iat ion A ct re lat ing to sa fe tyare r el evanther e. I n t hei r curr ent form , t he s t atut e’ s s afe t y - r el at ed pr ovi s i ons s etfor t h s t andar ds forcert i fy i ng pi l ot s , fli ght a tte n d a n t s , a irc a rr ie rs , a irp o rt s , a n d o th e r f a c iliti e s , s ee 49 U .S .C . § § 4 4 7 0 2 -4 4 7 1 1 , 4 4 7 2 8 , an d re q u ire th e F A A to re g u late such i ssues as coll i si on avo i dan ce sy st em s, ai rcr afti nspecti on s, and “a i r cr aftoper at i ons dur i ng w i nt ercond i t i ons , ” s ee §§ 44713, 44716, 44717, 44722. T he s t atut e al s o di r ect s t he FAA t o i s s u e r e g u l a t i o n s i n k e e p i n g wi t h t wo s a f e t y - r e l a t ed g o als: t he “r educ[ t i on] orel i m i nat [i on] [of] t he pos s i bi l i t yor r ecurr ence of ac ci dent s i n ai rtr ans por t at i on, ” and the “pr om ot[i o n ] [of

] s afe fl i ghtof ci vi l ai r cr aft , ” s uch as by pr es cr i bi ng s t andar ds fort he cons t ruct i on and mai nt enan ce of ai r cr aft , “the r es erve s uppl y of fuel and oi l carr i ed i n fl i ght , ” and “the m axi m um hour s orper i ods of s ervi ce of ai r m en and other empl oy ees of air c arri er s . ” § 44701( c) , ( a)

. N othi ng i n t he s t atut e pert ai ns to safet ydur i ng di s embar kat i on; r ather , t he s t a tu t e ’ s s a f

e t yp r o v i s i o n s a p p e a rt o b e p r i n c i p a l l yc o n cer ned w ith sa f e tyin c o n n e c tio n w ith o p e ra tio n s a ss o c iate d w ith f lig h t. I ndeed, as w e not ed i n A bdul l ah , C ongr es s enac t ed the A vi at i on A ct t o “p rotec t th e li v e s o f p e rson s w h o tr av el on b o ard ai r cr aft

. ” 181 F. 3d at368 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itted).See, e. g. , 14 C

. F. R

. § 21. 127( a) ( “Each per s on 9 m anufa ctur i ng ai r cr aft

. . . s hal l es t abl i sh an appr oved pr oduct i on fl i ghtt es tpr ocedur e and .

. . fl i ght t es teac h ai r cr aft p ro d u c e d .”); 1 4 C .F .R

. § § 2 3 .2 1 -.2 9 (g o v e rn in g w e ig h t l im its w i t hi n w hi ch ai r cr aftm aybe s afe l yoper at ed) ; 14 C

. F. R

. § 23. 51 (go v ern ing take o ff

sp ee d s). See 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 107 ( s eatbel t s ) ; 14 C

. F. R

. §§ 91. 21 and 10 1 3 5

. 1 4 4 ( e l e c t r o n i c d e v i c e s ) ; 1 4 C

. F

. R

. § § 9 1

. 5 2 3 , . 5 2 5 ( c a r r yo n baggage ) ; 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 535 ( food and be ver age eq u ipm en t)

. See, e. g. , 14 C

. F. R

. § 61. 159 ( “[A ] per s on w ho i s appl y i ng 11 fo r an airl ine tran sp o rt p il o t certi fica te w ith an airplan e c ateg o ry and cl as s rati n g m u sthave a tl eas t1, 500 hour s of t ot al t i m e as a p ilo t . .

. .”); 1 4 C .F .R . § 6 5 .3 3 (g o v e rn in g g e n e ra l elig ib ili ty r equi r ement s forai rt r aff i c contr ol l er s ) ; 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 533( b) (“ N o p e rs o n m a ys e rv e a s a f lig h t a tte n d a n t o n a n a irp la n e . . . 18 I ti s nots urpr i s i ng, t hen, t hatm os tof the r egul at i ons a d o p ted p u rsu a n t to th e A v iatio n A c t co n c e rn a sp e c ts o f sa f e ty t hatar e as s oci at ed w i t h fl i ght. Forexampl e, the r egul at i ons det ai l cert i fi cat i on and “a i r w or t hi nes s ” r equi r ement s forai r cr aft par t s . T hey i ncl ude fl i ght rul es fami l i ar t o ai r t r avel er s , s uch as

9 t hos e r equi r i ng t he us e of se atbel t s , r es t r i ct i ng t he us e of el ectr oni c devi ces , r egul at i ng w her e ca r r y - on baggage can be s t or e d , a n d r e q u i r i n g th e s t o wag e o f f o o d a n d b e v e r age equi pm entdur i ng t axi i ng, t akeof f, and l andi ng. T hey al s o s et 10 qual i fi cat i ons forpi l ot s , fl i ghtat t endant s , and ai r t r aff i c contr ol operat or s , and r egul at e the conduc tof cr ew m ember s dur i ng

11unl es s t hatper s on has demonstr at ed t o the pi l oti n comm and fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he nec es s aryfunct i ons to be per form ed i n an e m e rg e n c yo r a situ a tio n re q u irin g e m e rg e n c ye v a c u a tio n a n d is capa bl e of us i ng t he emer gencyequi pm enti ns t al l ed on that airplan e.”). See, e. g. , 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 1 5 (“N o p il oti n comm and of a 12 ci vi l ai r cr aftm ayal l ow anyobj ectt o be dr opped from t hat aircraf t in fl igh t that cre ates a h az ard to perso n s o r pro p erty

. ”); 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 17( a) ( 2) ( “N o per s on m ayactorat t empt t o actas a cr ew m ember of a ci vi l ai r cr aft

— W hi l e underthe i nfl uence of al cohol

. . . . ”) ; 14 C

. F. R

. § 135. 100( b) ( “N o fl i ghtcr ew m ember m ayengage i n, nor m ay anypi l oti n comm and perm i t , any act i vi t y dur i ng a cr i t i cal phas e of fl i ght w hi ch coul d di s t r actany fl i ghtcr ew m emberfr om the per form ance of hi s or herdut i es or w hi ch coul d inter fer e i n anyw ayw i t h the pr operconductof tho se d u ti es.”). See, e. g. , 1 4 C .F .R . § 9 1 .1 1 7 (a ) (“ [ N ]o p e rso n m a yo p e ra te 13 a n ai rcr aft

. . . at an i nd i cat ed ai rs peed of m ore t han 2 5 0 k n o ts ( 288 m . p. h. )

. ”) ; 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 119 ( s et t i ng m i ni m um al t i tudes forvar i ous s i tuat i ons ) ; 14 C

. F. R

. §§ 9 1

. 126,

. 127,

. 129,

. 130,

. 131, and . 135 ( pr es cr i bi ng r equi r ement s forcomm uni ca ti o ns w i t h ai r t r aff

i c cont r ol t ow er s ) ; 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 145 ( des cr i bi ng t empora r yfl i ghtr es t r i ct i ons thatm ay be i m pos ed “t o pr eventthe uns afe congest i on of ai r cr afti n t he vi ci ni t yof an a er i al d e m o n s tr a tio n o r m a

jo r s p o rt in g e v e n t” ).

19 fl i ght

. Si m i l ar l y , t he r egul at i ons i m pos e restr ic t i ons on an

12 a i r c r a f t ’ s s p e e d , a l t i tu d e , c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , a n d f l i g h tp a t h

. We

1320 not e thatt he r egul at i ons un d er the A vi at i on A ctdo not sp e c if ica llyre g u late th e c o n d u c t o f th e c re w in c o n n e c tio n w ith t he l oadi ng or unl oadi ng of pass enger s . T he pri m arypurpos e of t hes e r egul at i ons appea r s t o be t he pre vent i on of ac ci dent s , and th e a ss u ra n c e o f

p a ss e n g e r sa f

e ty , in c o n n e c tio n w ith f lig h t.
T he r egul at i ons al s o cont ai n a br oader sta ndar d i n 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 13, w hi ch w e i dent i fi ed i n A bdul l ah as “pr ovi d[i ng] a gene r al des cr i pt i on of the s t andar d r equi r ed for the s afe oper at i on of ai r cr aft ” even “w her e t her e i s no s peci fi c pr ovi s i on or reg u l at i on governi ng ai rs afe t y . ” 181 F. 3d at371. T hat r egul at i on cont ai ns t w o par agr aphs

. Sect i on 91. 13( a) appl i es w h e n a n a irc ra f

t is b e in g o p e ra ted “ f o r th e p u rp o se o f

a ir navi gat i on”; s ect i on 91. 13( b) appl i es w hen an a i r cr afti s bei ng o p e ra te d “ o th e r t h a n f

o r t h e p u rp o s e o f

a irn a v ig a tio n .”
S e c tio n 9 1 .1 3 (a ) pr o v id e s as f o llo w s: “A irc ra

ft oper at i ons f

orthe pur

pos e of ai rnavi gat i on. No p e r s o n may o p e ra te a n a irc ra f

t in a c a re les s o r re c k les s m a n n e r so a s to endanger the l i fe orpr oper t yof another

. ” I ndepende nce con t end s that the air craftw as bei ng “op erat [ed] for the p urpose o f a irn av igation ” w ith in the m ea n ing o f th is r eg u lat ion

. W e a re nots o s ur e. I n or der t o interpre t t h e p h rase “o p era ti o n s for t he purpos e of a i rnavi gat i on” as us ed by§ 91. 13( a) , w e begi n by co ns i der i ng t he def

i ni t i ons pr ovi ded byt he r egul at i ons t hemsel ves . T he gene r al defi ni t i ons sec t i on of the r egul at i ons defines “ope rat e” t o m ean “use, cause t o use or aut ho ri ze t o u se a irc ra f t, fo r th e p u rp o se (e x c e p t a s p ro v id e d in [ § 9 1 .1 3 ]) o f a ir navi gat i on i ncl udi ng t he pi l ot i ng of ai r cr aft , w i t h orw i t houtthe21 r ightof l egal contr ol ( as ow ner , l es s ee, orot herw i s e)

. ” 14 C

. F. R

. § 1. 1. A s t hatdefi ni t i on indi cat es , t he meani ng of “oper at e” i s der i ved i n par t fr om § 91. 13. Si nce § 91. 13( a) , l i ke t he gene r al defi ni t i on of “ope r at e, ” re fer s t o “oper at i ons forthe p u rp o se o f

a ir n a v ig a tio n ,” th e re f e re n c e to § 9 1 .1 3 a p p e a rs to me a n § 9 1

. 1 3 ( b ) , wh i c h we wi l l d i s c u s s b e l o w. T h e d e f in iti o n s p ro v id e d b yth e A v iatio n A c t als o h e lp to el uci dat e t he m eani ng of § 91. 13( a)

. T he s t atut e de fines “‘o p era t e ai r cr aft ’ and ‘ oper at i on of ai r cr aft ’ [t o] m ean us i ng air cr aftfort he purpos es of ai rnavi gat i on, i ncl udi ng— ( A ) t he navi gat i on of ai r cr aft ; an d ( B ) caus i ng orauthor i zi ng the oper at i on of ai r cr aftw i t h orw i t houtthe r i ghtof l egal contr ol of th e a irc r a f

t. ” 4 9 U .S .C . § 4 0 1 0 2 (a )(3 5 ). A lth o u g h th e sta tu te does notdefi ne “a i rnavi gat i on, ” i tdoes defi ne tw o r el at ed te rm s : “ n a v ig a t e a i rc ra f t” a n d “ a irn a v ig a tio n f a c ility.”

“‘ [N ] avi g at e ai r cr aft ’ and ‘ navi gat i on of ai r cr aft ’ i ncl ude pi l ot i ng ai r cr aft

. ” § 40102( a)( 33)

. “‘ [A ] i rnavi gat i on f a c i l i t y ’

. . . i n c l u d [ e s ]

— ( A) a l a n d i n g a r e a ; ( B) a l i g h t ; ( C) appar atus orequ ipmentfordi s t r i but i ng w eatheri nform at i on, s i g n ali ng, r adi o- di r ect i onal fi ndi ng, orr adi o orother el e c t r o ma g n e t i c c o mmun i c a t i o n ; a n d ( D) a n o t h e rs t ru c tu r e or m echa ni s m for gui di ng orcontr ol l i ng fl i ghti n t he ai rorthe land ing an d take o ff

o f a ir cra ft. ” § 4 0 1 0 2 (a)(4).
I n l i ghtof thes e def

i ni t i ons , w e concl ude t hat t he ai r cr aft w as notbei ng oper at ed forthe purp o s e of a i rnavi gat i on atthe ti m e o f E lassaa d ’s ac cide n t, an d thu s th a t th e stan d ard o f c are pr ovi ded by§ 91. 13( a) di d notappl yt o thi s s i tuat i on. B yt he t i m e of t he acci dent , t he ai r cr aft had l anded, t axi ed t o t he gat e, and come t o a compl et e s t op; the cr ew had alr ea d y o pened theW e do notr eac h t he i s s ue of w hetherot her ac ti v it ie s that 14 occurw hi l e a pl ane i s o n the gr ound, s uch as t axi i ng orthe p ro c e ss o f o p e n in g a n a irc ra f t’s d o o rs, w o u ld c o n stitu te “operati ons ” s uch thatt heyw oul d be s ubj ectt o fede r al pr eempt i on. 22 d o o r an d low ere d the p lan e’s stairs; an d all o f th e p asse n g ers ot hert han El as s aad had depl aned. A s di s cus s ed above , t he sta tu to rya n d re g u lato ryd e f in iti o n s o f

“ o p e ra te” sta te th a t a p lane is on lyb eing o p era ted, w ith in the m ea n ing o f § 9 1

. 1 3 (a), w hen i ti s bei n g “use[ d] ” for“navi gat i on, ” and the A vi at i on A ct ’ s defi ni t i ons of “na v igat e ai r cr aft ” and “ ai rnavi gat i on f a c ili ty ” d e m o n stra te th a t th e ter m “ n a v ig a tio n ” p rin c ip a lly appl i es t o t he t akeof

f and l andi ng o f an air cr aft , and the “pi l ot i ng” t hat occur s dur i ng t he fl i ght

. T hese defi ni t i ons c o n tem p late a f

lig h t c re w ’s in ter a c tio n w ith a n a irc ra f t an d w ith p asse n ger s w ho ar e on the ai r cr aft

. B ycontr as t , w e conc l ude t hata fl i ghtcr ew ’ s over s i ghtof the di s embar kat i on of p a ss e n g e rs— a f

ter a p lan e h a s f

in ish e d tax iin g to th e g a te, an d its cr ew has opened the ai r cr aft ’ s doorand l ow er ed i t s s t ai r s

— does n o t c o n s titu te “ o p e ra tio n s f o r t h e p u rp o s e o f

a irn a v ig a tio n .” 14
W e al s o concl ude thatthe ai r cr aftw as notbei ng oper at ed “othert han fort he purpos e of a i rnavi gat i on” as envi s i oned by 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 13( b)

. B oth par t i es conce de t hi s , and w e agr ee. T hat port i on of the regul at i on provides as fol l ow s:

A i r cr af top erat i ons otherthan f or the p ur pos e of ai rnavi gat i on. No p e r so n m a yo p e ra te a n a irc ra f t,A tthe t i m e, § 91. 13( b) w as know n as 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 10. 15 T he r egul at i on w as l at err enumber ed, w i t hou t a nyt extual re v is io n s , in 1 9 8 9

. See R evi s i on of G ener al O per at i ng and F li g h t R u les, 5 4 F ed

. R eg . 3 4 , 2 8 4 , 3 4 , 2 8 9 (A u g . 1 8 , 1 9 8 9 ). 23 o th e r th a n f

o r th e p u rp o se o f

a ir navi gat i on, on anypar tof the s ur fac e of a n ai rpor tused by ai r cr af t fo r air com m erc e (inc l udi ng ar e a s u s e d b yt h o s e a i r c r a f tf or r ece i vi ng ordi s char gi ng per s ons or cargo), i n a carel ess orreckl ess m anners o as t o endange rthe l i fe or p rop ertyo f a n o ther. § 91. 13( b)

. T he comm ent s m ade byt he FA A i n conj unct i on w i t h t he i s s uance of thi s r egul at i on hel p t o cl ar i fyi t s m eani ng. 15 T he age ncyexpl ai ned thatt he t erm “‘ oper at e an a i r cr aftother th a n f o r th e p u r p o se o f

a ir n a v ig a tio n ’ . . . is e m p lo y e d in th is rul e i n or dert o cl ear l y l i m i t t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he rul e t o tho se act s w hi ch i m

par ts om e phys i cal

m ovem ent

t o the ai r cr af

t , or in v o lve th e m a n ip u la tio n o f th e c o n tro ls o

f th e a irc ra

ft s uch as st art i ng or run ning an a i rcr a f t e n g ine. ” C arel ess orR eckles s G ro u n d O p e ra tio n o f A irc ra f t, 3 2 F e d

. R e g . 9 6 4 0 , 9 6 4 0 -4 1 (Ju ly 4, 1967) ( emphasi s added)

. T her e is n o evi dence t hat , by w at chi ng E l as s aad e xi tt he pl ane, t he fl i ght cr ew w as engagi ng i n anyact s t hat“i m par t [ed] so m e phy s i cal m ovementt o t he ai r cr aft , ori nvol ve[d] t he mani pul at i on of the contr ol s of the ai r cr aft

. ” I

d. A s n o ted a b o v e , n o t o n ly h a d th e a irc ra f t c o m e to a c o m p lete sto p , b u t th e a irc ra f t’s d o o r h a d b e e n o p e n e d , it s24 s t ai r s had bee n l ow er ed, and mostof the pas s enger s had al r eady d isem b ark ed

. T h e c rew ’s co n d u ct w ith re sp ec t t o E lassaa d ’s di s embar kat i on t her efor e di d not cons t i tut e “ope r at i ons ” forany purpos e under§ 91. 13.
T he s t atut or yand r egul at ory fr amew or k of t he A vi at i on A ct t hus pr ovi des no evi dence of anyi nt ent

— m uch l es s a “c l ear and mani fes t ” i nt ent

— t o r egul at e s afe t ydur i ng di s embar kat i on. I n A bdul l ah , w e co n cluded t hat , gi ven the overw hel m i ng num bero f

r el evantA vi at i on A cts afe t yr egul at i ons , the A vi at i on A ct p reem pt ed the fi el d of avi at i on s afe t y . H er e, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatei t herC ongr es s or t he FA A i nt ended t hatfede r al l aw w oul d i m pos e a l egal dut yi n an ar ea thati s nei t her s p e c i f i c a l l y r e g u l a t e d b y f

e d e r a l l a w n o rc l e a r l y g o v e r n e d b y a g e n e ra l f e d e ra l sta n d a rd o f c a re : th e a ss ista n c e p ro v id e d to p a s s e n g e rs d u ri n g th e ird is e m b a rk a tio n . A c c o rd in g ly, w e concl ude t hat t he A vi at i on A ct and i t s s afe t y r egul at i ons do not pr eempts t at e l aw s t andar ds of ca r e i n t hi s negl i gence act i on. 2.
A ft er t he D i s t r i ct C our tfound fe der al pr eempt i on bas ed on A bdul l ah , i tl ooked t o the A C A A r egul at i ons fort he appl i cabl e s t andar d of ca r e. O n appea l , I ndepende nce goes f u r th e rt h a n t h e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , a n d a r g u e s t h a tt h e AC AA i ndepende nt l ypr eempt s E l as s aad’ s negl i gence cl ai m . W e r ej ect th is a rg u m e n t. C o n g re ss p a ss e d th e A C A A in 1 9 8 6 a s a n a m e n d m e n t to th e A v ia tio n A c t. See Pub. L

. N o. 99- 435 § 2( a) , 100 St at

. 1080 (1 9 8 6 ). T h e sta tu te w a s in ten d e d to c lo se a g a p in a n ti-T he FA A goes s o faras t o advi s e ai rcarr i er s on t he pr oper 16 cont ento f, a nd t one us ed i n, comm uni cat i ons w i t h di s abl ed p a s s e n g e rs . See 7 0 F e d . R e g . 4 1 ,5 0 4 (“ E m o tio n s m a t t e r . . . . W h en ac k n o w ledg ing the e m o ti o n s o f o thers, i t m ayb e m o re eff ect i ve t o us e ‘ y ou’ r athertha n ‘ I

. ’ Forexampl e, us e, ‘ Y ou mus t b e f

ru s t r a t e d b y h a v i n g t o wai t f o r y o u r chec ked w heel chai r . ’ N ot , ‘ I compl et el y under s t and how y ou fee l , I had to w a it fo re v e r a t a s u p e rm a rk e t ch e c k -o u t y e ste rd a y .’”) ; i d. (“If y ou have a nydoubt s as t o how t o as s i s ta pas s engerw i t h a d isab il ity , y o u sh o u ld a s k the p asse n g er f o r gu idan ce b ef

o re ac ti ng. A voi d bei ng over l yenthus i as t i c abouthel pi ng and al w ay s t hi nk befor e y ou s peak a nd actw hen off eri ng assistan ce . ”). 25 d i s c r i mi n a t i o n l a w t h a twa s ma d e a p p a r e nt byt h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n D epar tm ent of Trans por tat i on v. P ar al

yz ed V et er ans of

A m er i ca , 477 U

. S. 597, 610- 12 ( 1986) , i n w hi ch the C o u rth e ld that, d esp it e re ce iving fe d era l fu n d ing , air carriers w e re n o t su b

jec t to c e rta in p ro v isio n s o f th e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t, 29 U

. S. C

. § 7 9 4

. T he A C A A w as des i gned t o addr es s and pr ohi bi tai r l i ne di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on di s abi l i t i es , a n dd i r ect ed the F A A to i ssu e reg u lat ion s “to en s u re n o n d iscri m inato ry tre a tm e n t o f

q u a lifie d h a n d ica p p e d in d iv id u a ls c o n sis ten t w ith s afe carr i age of al l pas s enger s on ai r carr i er s . ” § 3, 100 St at

. at 1 0 8 0 ; see al

so 49 U

. S. C

. § 41705( a)

. M or e t han j us tpr ohi bi t i ng over t l y di s cr i m i nat or y conduct , t hes e re gul at i ons “ar e ai m ed at en su ri n g that serv ices, f ac il it ies, an d o ther ac co m m o d ati o n s are pr ovi ded t o pas s enger s w i t h d isa bi l i t i es i n a r es pect ful and h e lp f u l m a n n e r.” N o n d isc rim in a tio n o n th e B a sis o f D isa b ili ty in A irT rav el, 7 0 F ed

. R eg . 4 1 ,4 8 2 , 4 1 , 5 0 4 (July1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ). 16T he di r ect i ve of s ect i on 382. 3( d) w as r epl ace d w i t h s i m i l ar 17 lan g u a g e th a t n o w a p p e a rs in 1 4 C .F .R . § 3 8 2 .7 (g ) (2 0 0 9 ):

“ N o tw ith sta n d in g a n yp ro v isio n s o f th is P a rt, y o u m u st c o m p ly w ith a ll F A A s a f

e ty re g u la tio n s . . . .” E v e n if E las sa a d w e re a lleg in g d isc rim in a to rytre a tm e n t, i t 18 i s notcl ear w h ethe r he w oul d have a r i ghtof ac t i on undert he A C A A

. C om

par e Shi naul tv. A m . A i r l i nes , 936 F. 2d 796, 800 (5th C i r. 19 91 ) ( ho l ding t hat t he A C A A creat es a p ri vate cause o f a c tio n ), and Tal l ar i co v. Trans W or ld A i r l i nes , I

nc. , 881 F. 2d 26 D e sp ite th e sta tu te’ s re f e re n c e to th e “ sa f

e c a rria g e o f

a ll pas s enger s , ” the A C A A r egul at i ons do notdi s pl ace A vi at i on A c t s a f e ty re g u l a t i o n s . See 14 C

. F. R

. § 382. 3( d) ( 2004) (“ N o th in g in th is p a rt sh a ll a u th o riz e o r req u ire a c a rrie r to f a il to co m p lyw ith an yap p li ca b le F A A saf etyreg u lat ion

. ”). 17
I ti s cl eart hat t he A C A A i s ai m ed atens ur i ng r es pectand equal t r eatm ent for di s abl ed ai r l i ne pass enger s . I f El as s aad ha d cl ai m ed thathe w as di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tbyI n d ep en d ence or D el t a on t he bas i s of hi s di s abi l i t y , hi s cl ai m w oul d ar guabl ybe p re e m p te d b yth e A C A A

. See N o n d isc rim in a tio n o n th e B a sis of H andi cap i n A ir T r avel , 55 Fed. R eg. 8008, 8014 ( M ar . 6, 1990) ( “[The A C A A ] i s a det ai l ed, compre hens i ve, n ati o nal r egul at ion , b as ed on Feder al s t atut e, t hats ubs t ant i al l y , i f not c o m p le te ly, o c c u

p ies th e field o

f n o n d isc rim in a tio n o n th e b a sis of handi cap i n ai rtr avel

. . . . [I ] nt er es t ed par t i es s houl d be on not i ce thatt her e i s a s t r ong l i kel i h o o d that s t at e ac t i on on m att ers c o v ere d b ythis rule w il l be re g ard ed as p ree m p ted.” ( emphasi s added) )

. B utE l as s aad di d n o tcl ai m that 185 6 6 , 5 7 0 (8th C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ) (sam e) , w ith B osw el lv. Skyw est Ai r l i n e s , I

nc. , 361 F. 3d 1263, 1266 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng th a t th e A C A A d o e s n o t c re a te a p ri v a te c a u s e o f a c tio n ), and Lo v e v . Del ta Ai rLi nes , 3 10 F. 3d 1347, 1356 ( 11t h C i r . 2002) (s a m e ). See al

s o Tunis on v. C ont i nental A i r l i n es C or p. , 162 F. 3d 1187, 1188 n. 1 ( D

. C

. C i r . 1998) ( expr es s l yr es ervi ng d e c isio n o n th e q u e stio n ); B ow er v. Fed. E xpr es s C or

p. , 96 F. 3d 200, 204 n. 9 ( 6 th C i r . 1996) ( s ame)

. H ow ever , w e nee d not re s o lv e th is is s u e to d a y . A l t hough w e concl ude t hatt he A C A A does notpr ovi de an 19 appl i cabl e, contr ol l i ng s t andar d of ca r e her e, w e offer one ca v ea t: the A C A A reg u lat ion s cit ed b ythe D istr ic t C o u rtare n o t en tirelyirre lev a n t. If th is c a se g o e s to a ju ry , the ju ryw ill m o st lik e lyb e in stru c ted a s to th e re lev a n t r e g u latio n s a n d to ld i tcan t ake them i n to co n s i der at i on i n as s es s i ng w hether 27 I n d e p e n d e n c e v i o l a t e d a n yo f i t s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e AC AA, n o r d id h e e v e n su g g e st th a t d isc rim in a tio n p layed a n y ro le in its conductt ow ar d hi m . I ns t ead, E l as s aad al l eged i n hi s compl ai nt t hatI ndepende nce w as negl i gent , i nt eral i a, i n fai l i ng t o pr ovi de b o th “ a m e a n s f

o r P lain tiff

to sa f e lye x it th e p lan e g iv e n h is phy s i cal condi t i on and nee d t o us e crut ches ” and “ per s onal as s i s t ance t o hel p Pl ai nt i ff go dow n the step s. ” A pp. 16- 17. T he A C A A r egul at i ons ar e i nt ended t o pr ot ectpas s enger s fr om di s cr i m i nat i on byai rcarr i er s ; t heyar e not i nt ended t o di ct at e a sta ndar d of ca r e i n a negl i gence act i on, e v e n if f e d e r al l aw appl i es t hr ough pr eempt i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude thatt he A C A A do es not pr eem pt anyst and ard o f care that gove rns a fl i gh tat t end ant’ s cond uct i n a si tuati on such as t his

. 19I ndepende nce a nd i t s cr ew ful fi l l ed thei rdutyt ow ar d E l as s aad a s h e d ise m b a rk e d

. F o r e x a m p le, th e m o d e l ju ryin stru c tio n s in Penns y l vani a s t at e t hat“[n] egl i gentconductm aycons i s tei t her o f a n a c t o r a f

a ilu re to a c t w h e n th e re i s a d u t y t o d o s o .” P enns ylvani a Sugges t ed Standar d C i vi lJur y I ns tr uct i ons § 3. 01 (3 d e d . 2 0 0 5 ). T o th e e x ten t th a t th e A C A A re g u latio n s s e t f o rth a n a sp e c t o f

th e d u tyo w e d to E las sa a d a s a d is a b le d p e rso n , it wo u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e f

o rth e j u r yt o c o n s i d e rth e m. 28 I V

. C oncl us i on F o r th e re aso n s g iven ab o v e, w e c o n clud e th at E lassaa d ’s cas e i s governed bys t at e l aw negl igence pr i nci pl es and, s i nce t he D ist ri ctC our tm eas ur ed El as s aad’ s cl ai m acc or di ng t o a di ffe r ent s t andar d, w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand r emand forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.