Opinion ID: 20741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Design Defect (Negligence, Strict Liability and Warranty)

Text: 24 Defendants claim that the government contractor defense immunizes them from liability in this case. The primary issue with regard to an alleged design defect in this case is whether the government approved reasonably precise specifications. The district court held that the unrebutted summary judgment evidence establishes that the government approved reasonably precise specifications for the design features in this case. 25 First, the T-34C originated as a modification of the T-34B, a plane the Navy had been using to train pilots for 20 years. The T-34B had the same PRS, the same control stick and the same cockpit design as the T-34C. Second, the government was extensively involved in the approval process. The record reveals a clear pattern of government-contractor interaction over at least eight years. Third, approval of the T-34C's design included the specific features at issue in this case. The defendants argue that [t]he defective nature of the features may have been latent to the Navy as well as the contractors, but the features themselves were obvious to anyone who flew the T-34C. Fourth, the Navy specifically addressed the design features at issue in this case throughout the approval process. 26 The district court held that plaintiff's arguments that the government contract defense is not available are unavailing. First, plaintiffs argue that the defendants purchased the PRS off the shelf. As noted by the district court, the government procurement officer did not order a quantity of restraint systems in the same way he would order light bulbs, but rather, government engineers approved the inclusion of these specific components into a complex piece of equipment. In addition, the Navy specifically tested the T-34C's PRS during its evaluation of the aircraft following Phase II testing. Furthermore, neither counsel for the plaintiff nor counsel for the defendant were able to name or otherwise identify another aircraft which uses the PRS involved in this case. 27 Second, plaintiffs argue that the T-34C's PRS specifications conflict with another, more general specification. The district court held that the specifications cited by the plaintiff were not implicated by the facts of this case. The plaintiffs again refer to the gravity clearance paragraph in the specifications mentioned above. The argument was dismissed in the context of a manufacturing defect and is also unavailing in the design defect context. 7 28 Lastly, the plaintiffs argue that the defense should not apply because the government did not actively limit the contractor's ability to develop a safer design. Basically, plaintiffs argue that a safer design could have been developed without violating any specification. This argument focuses on an incorrect standard which is whether the government approved a specification that did not contain a safer design. The inapplicability of this standard to the case at bar has been addressed. 29 The defendants argue that the government approved reasonably precise specifications. They reference numerous documents involving the PRS in general and the buckle in particular. The reasonably precise standard is satisfied as long as the specifications address, in reasonable detail, the product design feature, alleged to be defective. See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 512; Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794, 799 (5th Cir. 1993) (noting that the specifications need not address the specific design defect alleged, just the specific feature). Defendants alternatively allege that even if the Navy is found not to have approved the PRS during T-34C design process, it did approve the allegedly defective design at issue far before the accident by subsequent testing and use. 8 The 1985 and 1986 FEAT meetings are evidence of this. 30 We find that the district court's conclusion that the Navy approved reasonably precise specifications for the T-34C's seat harness was appropriate under the facts of this case. Therefore, the government contractor defense applies. 9