Opinion ID: 1198956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The FAA regulations' effect on the public at large

Text: Defendant also contends that the particular administrative regulations here affect only the personal or proprietary interests of employers who apply for certification and do not inure to the public's benefit. Thus, defendant claims, no public interest exists to justify plaintiffs claim. ( Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 670-671, fn. 12, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) Defendant asserts the provisions are not firmly established, fundamental, and substantial as Tameny requires ( Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 172, 176-177, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330), but are merely procedural because the regulations apparently involve the `procedural requirements for the issue of type certificates.' We disagree. The critical distinction between the facts here and those at issue in Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pages 670-71, footnote 12, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373, is that there the violations of internal practices affected only the employer's interest, while here defendant's alleged misconduct potentially jeopardized airline passenger safety. Protecting airline passengers, therefore, is the relevant fundamental public policy at issue. Promoting airline safetythe subject of the federal regulationsconstitutes a policy of sufficient public importance. As plaintiff points out, travel by any common carrier inevitably concerns the public, because a common carrier's mistake or a manufacturer's defective part can cause multiple casualties. Thus, the public policy that is the foundation for plaintiffs case not only satisfies Foley's requirement for a public interest, but also Tameny' s requirement for a fundamental policy interest. ( Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 670, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373; Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 176, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330.)