2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-6-2010 

# J o seph El a s s a a d v

. Indep e nde nce Air Inc
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3878

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" J os ep h El as s a a d v

. Indepe nde nc e Air Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 845. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/845P 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 .; D E L T A A IR L IN E S , IN C .,

_________________________ 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* ( Fi l ed: J ul y6, 2010)
*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 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.

AM ENDED OP I 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 f r om an o rde 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 laim f

o r in ju rie s s u s ta 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 at t he 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 F e d e r a l Avi a t i o n Act( “ Avi a t i o n Act ” ) , 4 9 U. S. C. § 4 0 1 01 ets eq. , pr eempt s s t at e l aw conce r ni n g tort cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om an ai rcarr i er ’s c o n ducti n over s eei ng t he di s embar kat i on of pas s enger s . A l t hough w e st at ed i n A bdul l ah v. A m er i can A irl ines , I

nc. , 181 F. 3d 363, 365 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , t hatt he 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 hatt he “f i el d of avi at i on s afe t y ” does3 noti ncl ude a f

l i ghtcrew ’s over s i ghtof the di s embar kat i on of p a ss e n g e rs o n c e a p la n e h a s c o m e to a c o m p lete sto p a t it s d e s tin a tio n . A b d u llah t her efor e does notcontr ol t he i ns t ant cas e. W e al s o hol d tha tt he A vi at i on A ctand the r egul at i ons prom ulgat ed thereun der do no t preem pt st at e t ort l a w w ith r es pectt 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 arrie r A cc ess 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 not contr o l t h e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n to f

a i r l i ne sa f e t y . A s a res ult , w e con cl ud e t hat t he st and ard of car e 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 aryjud g m 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 p air of cru tche s 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 rt he aus pi 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 32 8 , a sm all co m m u ter j et, 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 aft

. A ft erarriving a thi s s eatw i t hout i nci dent , E l as s aad a t t empt ed t o p lace 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 ght at t endanton t he pl ane, t hen t ook t he crut ches and s t ow ed them i n the baggage ar ea f ort he d u ra tio n o f

th e f lig h t.
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 p a ss e n g e rs h a d d e p lan e d . L a v o ieA 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 and t hi r t een i nches w i de, and he e xpl ai ned that he h ad n ot pr eviousl yt aken no t e of thei r narrow ness becau se des cendi ng s t ai r s us i ng crut ches i s m or e di ffi cul tt han 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 ay 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , af ter E lassaa d ’s ac cide n t. See N on dis cri m i nati on on t he B asi s of D i sabi l i t yi n A i r T ra v e l, 73 Fed. R eg. 27, 614 ( M ay13, 2008)

. A l l r efe r en ce s to and q u o tat ion s o f th o se re g u lat ion s in the b o d y o f th is op inion are b a se d o n th e p re -a m e n d m e n t te x t, w h ich w a s in e f f e c t at a ll (c o n tin u e d ...) 4 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 t he ai r cr aft door

. A tt hatpoi nt , des pi t e havi ng boar ded t he ai rcr aft by t he sam e st ai rcas e, E l assaad no t i ced for 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 eft s i de, but not on t he r i ght

. T hough E l as s aad r ecogni zed t hathe “nee ded as s i s t ance ” t o des cend t he s t ai r cas e, A pp. 117, he chos e nott o r eques thel p beca us e he bel i eved t he onl yai d t he ai rl i ne co uld offer w ou l d b e t o car ry him do w n the st ai rs . El a s s a a d t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e wou l d h a v e d e c l i n e d s u c h a s s i s t ance d u e to h is pe rc e p tio n o f it a s d e m e a n in g . H o w e v e r, h e w o u ld 2(

. . . cont i nued) 2 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 t hi 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 yt her 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 t h e step s, l eavi ng, i n t he 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 t he 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 t he 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 hatt he 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 dut yof 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 thatt he 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 t hatt 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 , t he 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 t h 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 whyt h 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 t h 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 , ort hei 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 bot h 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 t he 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 t he gr ound t hatt he cour t had i m pr oper l y i ns t ruct ed t he j ur y on t he11 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 eemptt he 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 t hatt her 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 , ” butt hat“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 t hat 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 ectt he 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 or yt o r eac h t he 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 t hat 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 t hor 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 t he 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 hethert he j ur yi 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 t hemsel 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 , t hat “[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 ith f e d e ra l law ,” s u c h th a t “it is im p o ss ib le f o r a p riv a te p a rty to co m p lyw ith b o th state an d fe d era l r eq u ir e m e n ts, or w h ere s t at e l aw s t ands as an obs t acl e t o t he ac compl i sh m entand e x e c u tio n o f

th e f u ll p u rp o s e s a n d o b

je c tiv e s o f

C o n g re s s .” E ngl is h v. G en. E l ec. C o. , 4 9 6 U

. S

. 72, 79 ( 1990) ( i nt ernal q u o tat i on m arks an d cit ati o n s o m itted). F iel d p ree m p ti o n o cc u rs w hen a f i el d i s “r es erved forfede r al r egul at i on, l eavi ng no r oom fors t at e r egul at i on, ” and “ congr es s i onal i nt entt o s uper s ede s t at e l aw s [i s ] cl earand mani fes t

. ” H olk v. Sna

p p le Bever age C or p. , 575 F. 3d 329 , 336 ( 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 ot h s t atut es and r egul at i ons can p re e m p t s ta te la w . I

d. at339.
C. Th e r e i s n o b a s i s f

o r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Avi a t i on A ct pr e e mpt s El a s s a a d’ s s t a t e l a w c l a i ms thr ou gh e xp r e ss14 pr eempt i o n orconfl i ctpr eempt i on. T o t he ext entt hatt he A v iatio n A c t p re e m p ts th e se c laim s, it m u st b e th ro u g h f ield pr eempt i on. 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 ow ever, ou r anal y si s of fiel d p reem pti on in A bdul l ah

— sp e c if

ica lly , the “ f

ield ” o f “ a v iatio n sa f

e ty ”— w a s in t h e c o n t e x to f

i n - f l i g h ts a f e t y . Th i s i s c l e a rf

r o m a c a r eful r eadi ng of our deci s i on. I n des cr i bi ng ourconcl us i on r egar di ng pr eemp ti o n , w e s t at ed that“fe der al l aw es t abl i s hes t he appl i cabl e s t andar ds of car e i n t he fi el d of a ir s a fety , ” and that t he FA A h as “sol e di s cr et i on i n r egul at i ng a ir s a fety

. ” I d. at 367, 369 ( emphase s added)

. A s exampl es of w hatw e meantby t he t erm “ai r sa fe ty , ” w e not ed thata goal of the A vi at i on A ct w as t o r educe “ac ci dent s i n ai rt r 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 ref erred to the F A A ’s r egul at i on of “pi l otcert i fi cat i on, pi l otpr e- fl i ghtdu ti es, pi l ot fl i ghtr es pons i bi l i t i es , and fl i ghtrul es , ” i d. a t3 6 9 ( f o o t not 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. at371. A ccor di ngl y , w e i dent i fi ed the s t andar d of ca re 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 ] i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s f

ort he 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 ca r el 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 at 372. 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 s u it b a se d o n in ju rie s s u sta in e d w h ileT 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 yeth v. L ev ine , 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 make no comm 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. 15 t h e 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 , fly i ng betw een i t s or i gi n and des t i nat i on. O ur us e of t he 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 t h 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 the 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 ng i n A bdul l ah

.

7
A s w e have notopi ned as t o t he pr ee m p ti v e effec 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 viat 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. D.
W hen cons i der i ng pr eempt i on of an a r ea of t r adi t i o n al s t at e r egul at i on, w e “be gi n o u r anal y s i s byappl y i ng a presu m p ti on agai ns tpr eempt i on. ” H o lk , 575 F. 3d at334A 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 byt he 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). 16 (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 l aw to g o v ern d ispu tes i n ca ses w h ere a plainti ff all eg es th at h e fe ll as a r esu lt o f th e d ef en d an t’ s negl i gence . 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 t h e A ir l i ne D e re g u latio n A c t, w e re a so 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 hert he author i t ynort he appa r atus re q u ir e d to s u p e ri n te n d ” to rt d is p u te s . 1 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 9 4

. In a d d iti o n , as Ju stic e S tev e n s h a s sta ted , “‘C o n g re ss d id n o t in ten d to g iv e a ir lin e s f re e re in to c o m m it n e g lig e n t ac ts s ubjectonl yt o t he s upervi s i on of the D epart m entof T ra n sp o r ta ti o n , an ym o re th a n it m e a n t to a llo w a irline s to br each co nt r act s w i t h i m puni t y , ” bec aus e “the s t andar d of or di narycar e, l i ke contr actpr i nci pl es , ‘ i s a gener al backgr ound rul e aga i ns tw hi ch al l i ndi vi dual s or der t 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 , 513 U

. S. 219, 236- 37 (19 9 5 ) (Stev en s, J. , co n cu rri n g in p art an d d issen ti n g in p art))

. E ven though TajM

ahaladdr es s ed a di fferen t st atut e than the17 fede r al l aw s ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e, w e adhe r e t o i t s cons ervat i ve a p p r o a c h t o d a y. A s not ed above , t o fi nd field p ree m pt i on, w e mustfi nd t hatfede r al l aw “l eav[ es ] no r oom for s t at e r egul 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 under t 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 anyexpli ci ts t at ement 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.
W hen the 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 ct of 1958, Pub. L

. N o. 85- 726, 72 St at

. 731. O nl yt he por t i ons of the A vi at i on A ctr el at i ng t o s afe t yare r el evant her e. I n t hei rcurr entform , t he s t atut e’ s s afe t y - r el at ed pr ovi s i ons s et forth s t andar ds forcert i fy i ng pi l ot s , fl i 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 , a n d re q u ire th e F A A to re g u late such is sues as col l i si on avo i dan ce sy st em s, ai rcr afti nspecti on s, and “ai r cr aftoper at i ons dur i ng w i nt ercondi t i ons , ” s ee §§ 44713, 44716, 44717, 44722. T he s t atut e al s o di r ect s t he FA A t o i s s ue r egul at i ons i n keepi ng w i th t w o s afe t y - r el at ed goal s : t he “r educ[ t i on] orel i m i nat [i on] [of] the pos s i bi l i t yor r ecurr ence of ac ci d ent s i n ai rt r ans por t at i on, ” and the “pr om ot [i on] [of] s afe fl i g h t o f 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 ena n ce of ai r cr aft , “the re s erve suppl y of fuel and oi l carr i ed i n fl i ght , ” andSee, e. g. , 14 C

. F

. R

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

. . . s h all est abl i s h an appr oved pr oduct i on fl i ght t es t pr ocedur e and .

. . fl i ghtt 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 li m 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 y- (c o n tin u e d ...) 18 “the maxi m um hour s or per i ods of s ervi ce of ai r m en and other empl oy ees o f air carr i er s . ” § 44701( c) , ( a)

. N ot hi ng i n t he s t atut e pert ai n s to s afe t ydur i ng di s embar kat i on; r ather , t he s t atut e’ s s afe t ypr ovi s i ons appea r to b e pri nci pal l yconce r 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 at 368 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itted).
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 a ssoc i at ed w i t h fl i ght

. Forexampl e, t he r egul at i ons det ai l cert i fi cat i on and “ai r w or t hi nes s ” r equi r ement s forai r cr aft par t s . T heyi ncl ude fl i ghtrul es fami l i art o ai rt r avel er s , s uch as

9 t hos e r equi r i ng t he us e of s eatbel t s , r es t ri 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 ca n be s t or ed, and r equi r i ng t he s t ow age of fo o d and beve r age equi pm ent dur i ng t axi i ng, t akeof f, and l andi ng. T heyal s o s et 10(

. . . cont i nued) 10 on 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 a n airl ine tr an sp o rt p il o t ce rt ifi ca te w ith an airplan e c ateg o ry and cl as s r at i ng m us thave a tl eas t1, 5 0 0 h o u rs 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 . . . unl es s t hatper s on has demonstr at ed t o t he pi l oti n comm and fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he nec es s aryfunct i ons t o be per form ed in an e m e rg e n c y o r a situ a tio n re q u irin g e m e rg e n c y e 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. 15 ( “N o pi l oti n co m m an d o f a 12 ci vi l ai r cr aft m ayal l ow anyobj ectt o be dr opped fr om 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 undert he 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, norm ay an y pi 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 t he per form ance of hi s or herdut i es or (c o n tin u e d ...) 19 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 oper at or s , and r egul at e the conduc tof cr ew m embe rs dur i ng

11 fl i ght

. Si m i l ar l y , t he r egul at i ons i m pos e r es t ri cti o ns on an

12(

. . . cont i nued) 12 w hi ch coul d inter fer e i n anyw ayw i t h t he 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 t hatm ay be i m pos ed “t o pr eventt he 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” ).

20 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

13 not e thatt he r egul at i ons undert he A vi at i on A ct d o 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 orunl oadi ng of pas s enger s . T he pr i m ary purpos e of t hes e r egul at i ons appea r s t o be t he pre vent i on of acci 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 egu lat i ons al s o cont ai n a br oaders t andar 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 g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d f o rt h e 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 orr egul at ion g overni 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 s e 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 .”21 S e c tio n 9 1 .1 3 (a ) p ro v id e s a s f o llo w s: “A irc ra

ft oper at i ons f

orthe pur

pos e of ai rnavi gat i on. N o p er s on m ay 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 endange rt he l i fe orpr oper t yo f anot her

. ” 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 reg u lat ion

. W e a re nots o s ur e. I n or der t o i nt erpr et t he p h r a s e “ o p e r a t i o ns for t he purpos e of a i rnavi gat i on” as us ed by§ 91. 13( a) , w e begi n by cons i der i ng t he defi ni t i ons pr ovi ded by t he re gul at i ons t hems elves. T he gene r al defi ni t i ons s ect i on of the r egul at i ons defines “ope rat e” t o m ean “use, cause t o u se or aut ho ri ze t o u se a irc ra f t, f o 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 houtt he r i ghtof 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 i ndi 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 gener al defi ni t i on of “oper at e, ” r efe r s t o “oper at i ons fort he 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 y th e A v iatio n A c t a lso h e lp to el uci dat e the meani ng of § 91. 13 (a). T he s t atut e def i nes
“‘ oper at e ai r cr aft ’ and ‘ oper at ion of ai r cr aft ’ [t o] m ean us i ng ai r c r a f tf o rt h e p u rp o s e s o f

a i rn a v i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g

— ( A) t he navi gat i on of ai r cr aft ; and ( B ) caus i ng orauthor i zi ng t he oper at i on of ai r cr aftw i t h orw i t houtt he r i ghtof l egal contr ol of th e a irc ra f

t.” 4 9 U .S .C . § 4 0 1 0 2 (a )(3 5 )

. A lt h 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 te a ir c r a f t ” a n d “ a irn a v ig a tio n f a c ility.”22 “‘ [N ] avi gat e ai r cr aft ’ and ‘ navi gat i on of ai r cr aft ’ i ncl ude p i l o t i n g a i r c r a f

t

. ” § 4 0 1 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 3 )

. “ ‘ [ A] i rn a v i g a t 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 at u s orequi pm entfordi s t r i but i ng w eatheri nform at i on, s i gnal i ng, r adi o- di r ect i onal fi ndi ng, orr adi o o r other el ectr om agnet i c c o m m uni cat i on; and ( D ) anothers t ructur e or m echa ni s m forgui di ng orcontr ol l i ng fli ghti n t he ai rort he land ing an d take o ff

o f a ir cra ft. ” § 4 0 1 0 2 (a)(4).
I n l i ght of t hes e def

i ni t i ons , w e conc l ude thatt he ai r cr aft w as not bei ng oper at ed fort he purpos e of a i rnavi gat i on att he ti m e o f E la s saa d ’s ac cide n t, an d thu s tha t th e stan d ard o f c are pr ovi ded by§ 91. 13( a) di d notappl yt o t hi s s i tuat i on. B yt he t i m e of the ac ci dent , t he ai r cr afthad l anded, t axi ed t o t he gat e, and come t o a compl et e s t op; t he cr ew h ad al r eadyopened the d o o r an d low ere d the p lane ’s st airs; an d all o f th e p asse n g ers ot hert han El as s aad ha d deplaned. 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 of an a ir cra ft, 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 cr e w ’s in ter a c tio n w ith a n a irc ra f t an d w ith pas s enger s w ho ar e on the ai r cra ft. B ycontr as t , w e conc l ude thata 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 itsW e do notr eac h t he i s s ue of w hetherot her ac ti v it ie s t hat 14 occurw hi l e a pl ane i s o n t he gr ound, s uch as t axi i ng ort he 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. 23 cr ew has opened t he ai r cr aft ’ s door and 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 ai rnavi gat i on” as envi s i oned by 14 C

. F. R

. § 91. 13( b)

. B ot h par t i es conce de thi 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 toperat i ons otherthan f or the pu rpose of

ai rnavi gat i on. No p e rso n m a yo p e ra te a n a irc ra f t, o th e r th a n f

o r th e p u rp o s e o f

a ir navi gat i on, on anypar tof the s ur fac e of a n ai rpor tus ed by ai r cr aftfor a irco m m erc e (inc lud ing 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 r t he 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 onA 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 ). 24 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 aftot her th a n f o r th e p u rp o se o f

a ir n a v ig a ti o n ’

. . . is e m p lo y e d in th is rul e i n or der t o cl ear l y l i m i t t he appl i cabi l i t yof the rul e t o tho se act s w hi ch i m

pa rt s 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 running an ai rcr aft eng i ne. ” C arel e ss o r R eckles s G ro u n d O p e ra tio n o f

A irc ra f t, 32 F e d . R e g . 9 6 4 0 , 9 6 4 0 -4 1 (Ju ly 4, 1 9 6 7 ) ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )

. Th e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t hat , by w at chi ng E l as s aad exi t t he pl ane, t he fl i ghtcr ew w as engagi ng i n anyact s that “i m par t [ed] s om 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 lyh a d th e a irc ra f t co 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 s 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 barked. T he cr ew ’ s conductw i t h r es pectt o E l as s aad’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 or y fr amew or k of t he A vi at i on A ctt hus pr ovi des no evi dence of any i 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 conc l uded t h at, 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 , t he A vi at i on A ct p r e e mpt e d t h e f

i e l d o f a v i a t i o n s a f

e t y . Her e , t h e r e i s no25 i ndi cat i on t hat ei t her C ongr es s ort he FA A i nt ended thatfede 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 r d 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 r s d u r i n g t h e i rd i s e mb a r k a t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we concl ude t hat t he A vi at i on A ctand i t s s afe t yr 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. E.
A ft ert he D i s t r i ct C our t found fede r al pr eempt i on bas ed on A bdul l ah , i tl ooked to 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 appeal , I ndepende nce goe s fur ther tha n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , and ar gues t hat , as a mat t erof b o t h f i e l d p r e e mp t i o n a n d c o n f l i c tp r e e mp t i o n , t h e AC AA i ndepende nt l y pr eempt s E l as s aad’ s negl i gence cl ai m . W e r ej ect t hese argum ents

. 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 inte n d e d to c lo se a g a p in a n tid 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

. Th e AC AA was d e s i g n e d t o a d d r e s s a nd pr o h ibitairl ine d iscri m ination b ase d o n d isab il it ies, an d d ir ect ed the F A A to issue reg u lat ion s “to en su re n o n d is c ri 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

. atT he FA A goes s o faras t o advi s e ai rcarr i er s on t he pr oper 16 cont entof, and t one us ed i n, comm u n icat i ons w i t h di s abl ed p a s s e n g e rs . See 7 0 F ed

. R eg . 4 1 , 5 0 4 (“E m o ti o n s m att 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 athert han ‘ I

. ’ Forexam pl e, us e, ‘ Y ou m us tbe frus t r at ed b y h avi ng t o w ai tfory ourchec 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 as k the p asse n g er f o r gu idan ce b ef

o re act i ng. A voi d bei ng over l y en t hus 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 . ”). T 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 la n 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 y p ro v isio n s o f th is P a rt, y o u m u st c o m p ly

(c o n tin u e d ...) 26 1 0 8 0 ; see al

so 49 U

. S. C

. § 41705( a)

. M or e than j us tpr ohi bi t i ng over t l ydi 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, fa cil it ies, an d o ther a cc o m m o d ati o n s are pr ovi ded to pas s enger s w i t h di s abi 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 ). 16 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 d o notdi s pl ace A vi at i on A c t s a f e ty re g u la tio n s . See 1 4 C. F. R. § 3 8 2

. 3 ( d ) ( 2 0 0 4) (“ N o th in g in th is pa rt sh a ll a u th o riz e o r re q 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(

. . . cont i nued) 17 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 earw hetherhe w oul d have a ri g h t o f act i on undert he A C A A

. C o mpar e Shi naul tv. A m . A i r l i nes , 936 F. 2d 796, 800 (5th C i r. 19 91 ) (hol ding t hat t he A C A A creat es a pri 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 5 6 6 , 5 7 0 (8 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( s a m e ), w ith B osw el lv. Skyw est A i r l i nes , I

nc. , 361 F.3d 1 2 63, 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 t e a p r i v a te c a u s e o f a c tio n ), and Love v. D el ta A i rLi nes , 310 F. 3d 1 3 4 7 , 1356 ( 11t h C i r . 2002) (s a m e ). See al

so Tunis on v. C ont i nentalA i r l i nes C or p. , 162 F. 3d 1187, 1188 n. 1 ( D

. C

. C i r . 1998 ) (e xpr 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 (6th 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 . 27 I ti s cl eart hatt he A C A A i s ai m ed at ens ur i ng r es pectand equal t r eatm entfordi s abl ed ai r l i ne pas s enger s . B utE l as s aad di d not cl ai m t hat I ndepende nce vi ol at ed anyof i t s obl i gat i ons undert he A C A A , nordi d he even s ugges tt hatdi s cr i m i nat i on 18 pl ay ed anyr ol e i n i t s cond u ct t 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 hat I ndepende nce w as negl i gent , i nt er a lia, in f a ili n g to p r o v id e b o th “ a m e a n s f o r P lain tiff

to sa f e ly exitt he p l ane g i ven his ph y si cal co n d i t i on and need t o u se crut ches ” and “ per s onal as s i s t ance t o hel p Pl ai nt i ff go dow n t he s t e p s . ” Ap p . 1 6

- 1 7

. I n d e p e n d e n c e c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e s e c l a i ms a r e p r e e mp t e d b yt h e AC AA.28 In l i gh t of the purposes of the A C A A an d its i m p l e me n t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , we a r e n o tp e r s u a d e d t h a tt h ey pr eempts t at e law t hr ough ei t herfi el d pr eempt i on orconfl i ct p re e m p tio n . In d e p e n d e n c e c o n ten d s th a t th e A C A A p re e m p ts th e f ie ld o f “ a irc a rr ie r i n t e r a c tio n w ith d is a b le d p e rs o n s .” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at16. H ow ever , t he A C A A i s cl ear l ydi r ect ed at no nd i scr i m i nati on , and w e are notpersuaded t hat C on gress in ten d e d th e A C A A to p re e m p t any s t at e re g u la t i on of the i nt er act i on betw een an ai r carr i er and di s abl ed pas s enge rs (or di s abl ed per s ons i n gener al )

. A tm ost, the A C A A m i ght p re e m p t sta te n o n d is c r im in a tio n law s a s th e ya p p lyto dis cri m i nati on by ai r carri ers againstdis abled passenge rs . See N o n d isc rim in a tio n o n th e B a sis o f H a n d ica p in A ir T ra v e l, 55 F ed. R eg. 80 08 , 80 14 (M a r. 6 , 19 90 ) ( “[T he A C A A ] i s a det ai l ed, compre hens i ve, nat i onal r egul at i on, bas ed on Feder al s ta tu te , th a t s u b s ta n tia lly, if n o t c o m p le te ly, occupi es the f i eld of nondis crim inat i on on the bas is of handi cap i n ai rtr avel

. . . . [I ] nt er es t ed parti es s houl d be on not i ce thatt her e i s a s t r ong lik e lih o o d th a t sta te a c tio n o n m a tters c o v e re d b yth is ru le w ill b e re g a rd e d a s p re e m p ted .” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )). S tate nondi s cr i m i nat i on l aw s , h o w ever , ar e notati s s ue i n t hi s cas e. W e can fi nd no evi dence of a “ cl earand mani fes t ” congr es s i onal i nt entt o s uper s ede a nyr el evants t at e t or tl aw ort o “l eav[ e] no r oom fors t at e r egulati on” i n t hi s ar ea, and w e thus cannot c o n c lu d e th a t f

ie ld p re e m p tio n a p p lie s h e re . H o lk , 575 F. 3d at 336.
N or do w e bel i eve t hat t her e i s confl i ctpr eempt i on her e. W hen conf

l i ctpr eempt i on appl i es , i t i s beca us e s t at e and f eder al r equi r ement s are di amet r i cal l yoppos ed s o as t o frus t r at e ea ch o t h e r s ’ g o a l s . I n F idel i t y Feder alSavi ngs and Loan , forW e do not under s t and E l as s aad t o be ar gui ng t hat s t at e l aw 19 r e q u i r e s t h a ta i rc a r r i e r s o f f e ra s s i s t a n c e t o every di s abl ed pas s engerr egar dl es s of the ci r cumst ance s , and w e thus decl i ne to a d d re ss th e “ h yp o th e ti c a l sta te la w ” to th is e f f e c t th a t is p o s ite d b yIn d e p e n d e n c e . See A ppel l ee’ s B r . at13. 29 in sta n c e , a f

e d e ra l re g u la ti o n a llo w e d sa v in g s a n d lo a n s to enfor ce “ due- on- s al e” c l aus es , buts t at e l aw p rohi bi t ed e n f o rc e m e n t o f

s u c h c la u s e s . F i d. Fed. Sav. & Loan A s s ’ n v. de la C u e sta , 4 5 8 U. S. 1 4 1 , 1 5 5 ( 1 9 8 2 )

. I n G ei er , a fe der al regul at i on soug ht a “vari et y and m i x” o f safet ydev i ces i n cars, b u t a s ta te la w re q u ir e d th e u s e o f ju s t o n e s a f

e ty d e v ic e . G ei er v. A m . H onda Mot orC o. , 529 U

. S. 861, 881 ( 2000)

. I n U m l and , t her e w as a “c om pr ehens i ve admi ni s t r at i ve s ch em e” unde r fed e r a l l a w fo re mpl o y e e s t o c h a l l e n g e t h e i rc l a s s i f i c a t i o n s as i ndepende ntcontractor s , butt hi s s cheme w oul d have be en u n d e r mi ne d b ya s t a t e l a w c a u s e o f a c t i o n b a s e d o n t h e s a me c la im

. U m l and v. PLA NC O F i n. Ser vs . , I nc. , 542 F. 3d 59, 64- 65 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ).
T he p r e s e n t c a s e i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

. Th e AC A A w as i nt ended t o ens ur e nondi s cr i m i nat o ry t r eatm entof ai r l i ne p asse n g ers. I f itis true , as E lassaa d co n tend s, that the s tand ard of ca re s up pli ed b yst at e l aw requi red I nd e p end ence to assi st h im w ith h is d ise m b a rk a tio n a n d to p ro v id e a m e a n s f o r h im to sa f e lye x it th e a irc ra f

t, th o se d u ties c o u ld e a si lyc o e x ist w ith 19 th e A C A A ’s m a n d a te th a t In d e p e n d e n c e n o t d isc rim in a te agai ns t hi m . I ndepende nce ur ges t hat a goal of t he A C A A w as to p ro tec t “th e d ig n ityo f d isa b led p a ss e n g e rs,” a n d th a t th is obj ect i ve w oul d be frus t r at ed byt he s t at e l aw dut i es c i t ed by30 E l as s aad. A ppel l ee’ s B r . at12. I ndepende nce r el i es on t hr ee s our ces of author i t yfort hi s ar gum ent : D epart m entof T r ans por t at i on g ui dance s t at i ng t hatcarr i er s s houl d “[o] ffe r as s i s t ance onl yi f t he pass enger appea r s t o need he l p” ( i n or der t o “ens ur [e] t hats ervi ces . . . ar e provi ded .

. . i n a re s pect ful and hel pful m ann er ”) , 70 Fed. R eg. at41, 504; a r egul at i on pr ohi bi t i ng carr i er s fr om “[r ] equi r [i n g] an i ndi vi dual w i t h a di s abi li ty t o acc epts peci al s ervi ces . . . notr eques t ed byt he pas s enger , ” 14 C

. F. R

. § 382. 7( a) ( 2) ( 2004) ; and a reg ul at i on r equi r i ng carr i er s t o “pr ovi de as s i s t ance r eques t ed by oron b e h a lf o f q u a lifie d in d iv id u a ls w ith a d isa b ili ty , o r of f e re d b ya ir carr ier p ers onnel and ac cept ed byqual i fi ed i ndi vi dual s w i t h a di s abi l i ty , i n enpl ani ng and depl ani ng, ” 14 C

. F. R

. § 382. 39( a) ( 2004)

. T hes e aut hor i t i es , r es pect i vel y , encour age c arr i er s not t o offe ras s i s t ance w hen i ti s obvi ous t hatnone i s r equi r ed; f o rb i d c a rr i e r s t o i ns i s tt hatdi s abl ed pas s enger s acc eptunw ant ed as s i s t ance ; and r equi r e ca r r i er s t o as s i s tpas s engers w ho do r equest or a cce pts uch as s i s t ance . T hes e mandat es do not p ro h ib it air c a rrie rs f

ro m o f f e rin g u n so licite d a s s is ta n c e to di s abl ed pas s enger s w hen t he s i tuat i on w arr ant s i t , and t heydo n o t ev in c e a c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t th a t air c a rrie rs s h o u ld w i t hh old ass i st ance f

rom dis a b led passeng ers w hen do i ng so wo u l d b e n e g l i g e n t o r r e c k l e s s u n d e r s t a t e l a w. I n a n y e v e n t , we a re n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t co m p lian c e w ith d u ties im p o se d b ysta te law w o u ld re q u ire a ir c a rrie rs to a c t in a m a n n e r th a t w o u ld underm i ne the di gni t y of di s abl ed pas s enger s . T hus , t her e i s no bas i s for us t o fi nd ei t hert hati tw oul d have be en “i m pos s i bl e” f o rI n d e p e n d e n c e t o c o mp l ywi t h b o t h s t a t e l a w a n d t h e AC AA, or t hat s t at e l aw w oul d have been an “obs t acl e to t he acc om pl i s hm entand exe cut i on of the ful l purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s . ” Engl i sh , 4 9 6 U

. S. at79 ( i nt ernalA l t hough w e conc l ude thatt he A C A A does notpr ovi de an 20 appl i cabl e, contr ol l i ng s t andar d o f ca r e her e, w e off erone ca v ea t : t he A C A A r egul at i ons ci t ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tare n o t en tirelyirre lev a n t. If th is c a s e 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 re g u latio n s a n d to ld i t ca n take them i nt o cons i der at i on i n as s es s i ng w hether I ndepende nce a nd i t s cr ew ful fi l l ed thei rdut yt 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 rt h e j u r yt o c o n s i d e rt h e m. 31 q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). 20

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 i gence pr i nci pl es a nd, s i nce t he D i s t r i ctC our tm eas ur ed El as s aad’ s cl ai m ac co r di ng t o a di ffe r ent s t andar d, w e w i l l vaca t e t he D i s t r i ct C 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.