Opinion ID: 455801
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Existence of a Product

Text: 18 Jeppesen argues that the Government's instrument approach procedure is not a product within the meaning of Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A (1965). While that may be true, it misses the point. The issue is whether Jeppesen's chart is a product, not whether the instrument approach procedure is a product. In Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Jeppesen & Co., 642 F.2d 339, 341-42 (9th Cir.1981) (applying Nevada law), we analyzed the problem as follows: 19 Jeppesen approach charts depict graphically the instrument approach procedure for the particular airport as that procedure has been promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after testing and administrative approval. The procedure includes all pertinent aspects of the approach such as directional heading, distances, minimum altitudes, turns, radio frequencies and procedures to be followed if an approach is missed. The specifications prescribed are set forth by the FAA in tabular form. Jeppesen acquires this FAA form and portrays the information therein on a graphic approach chart. This is Jeppesen's product. 20 Accord Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co., 707 F.2d 671, 676-77 (2d Cir.1983) (Though a 'product' may not include mere provision of architectural design plans or any similar form of data supplied under individually-tailored service arrangements, ... the mass production and marketing of these charts requires Jeppesen to bear the costs of accidents that are proximately caused by defects in the charts.) (applying Colorado law). We agree with the plaintiffs' position that Jeppesen's chart was a defective product for purposes of analysis under section 402A. 9 21