Opinion ID: 3195507
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Presumption Against Preemption

Text: Applies Typically, our preemption analysis begins with the presumption that Congress does not preempt areas of law traditionally occupied by the states unless that is its clear and manifest intent. Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 565. In this case, Appellees argue that the presumption against preemption should not apply in the aviation context given the history of federal involvement in the field. That argument turns, however, on a selective view of history. 19 In general, products liability claims are exemplars of traditional state law causes of action. See Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 491. Indeed, state law governed the earliest products liability claims in this country. See, e.g., Curtain v. Somerset, 21 A. 244, 244-45 (Pa. 1891) (applying Pennsylvania law); Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397, 407-11 (N.Y. 1852) (applying New York law); see also Karl N. Llewellyn, On Warranty of Quality, and Society, 36 Colum. L. Rev. 699, 732-44 (1936) (discussing distinctions between the early products liability law of the various States). More specifically, even aviation torts have been consistently governed by state law. In The Crawford Bros. No. 2, 215 F. 269 (W.D. Wash. 1914), which appears to be the earliest tort case involving an aircraft, the court considered the effect of the “legal code of the air” that had been proposed by the International Juridic Committee on Aviation on a salvage claim related to an airplane crash in Puget Sound. Id. at 269-70. The court posited that, if the code had become law, “it would be important to consider its provisions in determining what was reasonable and proper in a cause involving air craft in a common-law action,” much like with rules governing water craft. Id. at 270. The court ultimately dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, as neither the proposed legal code of the air nor maritime law provided for jurisdiction, and instructed that such questions “must be relegated to the common-law courts.” Id. at 271. The decision in Crawford Bros. thus recognized that, absent specific legislation, the common law governed aviation tort claims. Years later, after Congress passed the 1926 Air Commerce Act but before the current type certification regime was imposed, Judge Buffington authored what 20 appears to be this Court’s first decision involving an aviationrelated tort claim, Curtiss-Wright Flying Service v. Glose, 66 F.2d 710 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 290 U.S. 696 (1933). There, a widow brought suit against the Curtiss-Wright Flying Service, an early airline, after her husband was killed in a plane crash as a result of negligent operation. Id. at 711. We analyzed the claims under common law negligence standards, see id. at 712, as no specific legislation or regulation governed those claims. Of course, because that decision preceded Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), our analysis turned on federal, rather than state, common law, but the distinction is not important for our purposes here. Rather, our decision reflects that despite the emergence of federal statutes governing aviation, the common law continued to apply to aviation torts. Since then, in the absence of applicable statutory or regulatory provisions, we have consistently applied state law to tort claims arising from airplane crashes. Only a month before the Federal Aviation Act was enacted, we were faced with a case involving three claims of defective design against an aircraft manufacturer after its plane broke apart in midair. Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 258 F.2d 602, 603-04 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 910 (1958). In concluding that the aircraft manufacturer did not negligently design the plane, we did not exclusively rely on the Civil Aeronautics Board’s certification of the relevant design, but rather methodically considered each design defect claim under a common law negligence standard, using the type certificate as but a part of that overall analysis. Id. at 605-07; see also Nw. Airlines v. Glenn L. Martin Co., 224 F.2d 120, 124 (6th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 937 (1956) (confirming the district court’s decision to leave the question of a manufacturer’s negligent 21 design to the jury for determination of whether the pertinent state standard of ordinary care was met). We have done the same in the years since the Federal Aviation Act replaced the Civil Aeronautics Act, see, e.g., Paoletto v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 464 F.2d 976, 978-82 (3d Cir. 1972) (applying a state standard of care to claims for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty arising from an airplane crash caused by the collapse of the plane’s right wing); Noel v. United Aircraft Corp., 342 F.2d 232, 23637 (3d Cir. 1964) (rejecting defendant’s argument that approval by the Civil Aeronautics Administration of an airplane’s propeller system was conclusive of compliance with the standard of care), as have other Courts of Appeals, see, e.g., Martin, 555 F.3d at 808; Bennett v. Sw. Airlines Co., 484 F.3d 907, 908 (7th Cir. 2007); McLennan v. Am. Eurocopter Corp., 245 F.3d 403, 426 (5th Cir. 2001); In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 522-23 (6th Cir. 1996); Pub. Health Trust v. Lake Aircraft, Inc., 992 F.2d 291, 293-95 (11th Cir. 1993); Cleveland v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 985 F.2d 1438, 1441-47 (10th Cir. 1993); In re N-500L Cases, 691 F.2d 15, 27-28 (1st Cir. 1982); Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 411 F.2d 451, 452-53 (2d Cir. 1969); Banko v. Cont’l Motors Corp., 373 F.2d 314, 315-16 (4th Cir. 1966). Consistent with the uniform treatment of aviation products liability cases as state law torts, we expressly held in Elassaad that the presumption against preemption applies in the aviation context.7 See 613 F.3d at 127 (“When 7 The Tenth Circuit rejected the application of the presumption against preemption in the air operations context on the ground that “the field of aviation safety has long been 22 considering preemption of an area of traditional state regulation, we begin our analysis by applying a presumption against preemption. . . . [I]t is appropriate to use a restrained approach in recognizing the preemption of common law torts in the field of aviation.” (quoting Holk, 575 F.3d at 334) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Abdullah, 181 F.3d at 366 (“[We] have addressed claims of preemption with the starting presumption that Congress does not intend to supplant state law.”). Appellees’ attempts to set the presumption aside are therefore unavailing. With this presumption in mind, we must determine whether Congress expressed its clear and manifest intent to preempt aviation products liability claims. We do so by reviewing the text and structure of the Federal Aviation Act, and, to the extent necessary and relevant to this statute, examining subsequent congressional action that sheds light on its intent. See Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485-86. We also consider relevant regulations that have been issued pursuant to the valid exercise of the FAA’s delegated authority, which can have the same preemptive effect as federal statutes. See Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C., 539 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir. 2008). dominated by federal interests.” See US Airways, Inc. v. O’Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318, 1325 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully disagree. 23