Opinion ID: 736293
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the manufacturing defect claim

Text: 34 Snell alleged that the drive shaft failure resulted from several manufacturing defects, to wit, the use of various defective and nonconforming components. The district court found that virtually every part of the helicopter was addressed in a government-approved plan and each replacement part supplied by Bell was certified to comply with the specifications. 35 We agree with the district court that the military contractor defense can apply to manufacturing defects. Although Boyle 's holding concerned liability for design defect claims, the Court's reasoning encompasses claims alleging manufacturing defects. As the court observed in Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 989 F.2d 794, 801 (5th Cir.1993), whether the defense will apply cannot be determined by the label attached to the claim. Strict adherence to the three Boyle conditions specifically tailored for the purpose will ensure that the defense is limited to appropriate claims. Thus, whether the defense applies to a claim based on an alleged manufacturing defect depends on whether the particular product at issue was to be manufactured in conformity with reasonably precise specifications approved by the government. Id. at 801-02; see also Harduvel, 878 F.2d at 1321 (To say that a product failed to conform to specifications is just another way of saying that it was defectively manufactured.). In the absence of proof of reasonably precise specifications approved by the government, the premise of the defense--the exercise of discretion by the government--is lacking. 3 36 Because the record does not permit finding as a matter of law that the government approved reasonably precise specifications for the drive shaft and its components, it necessarily precludes application of the military contractor defense as a matter of law to Snell's manufacturing defect claim.