Opinion ID: 2825255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Second Appeal: Jeppesen and Honeywell

Text: Jeppesen and Honeywell sought summary judgment on all claims against them, asserting that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case that their products contributed to the cause of the crash and that Honeywell owed no duty to advise of the existence of a superior product. The district court agreed. Again, we review the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Piltch v. Ford Motor Co., 778 F.3d 628, 631 (7th Cir. 2015). Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, few facts in their favor were properly before the district court when it was ruling on these defendants’ motions for summary judgment. That is because the plaintiffs failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1. They did not file a response to the defendants’ statement of facts or their own statement of facts in response to any of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. See Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) (requiring the non-moving party at the summary judgment stage to file a reply, including “a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party’s statement” as well as “a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment,” with appropriate references to the recNos. 14-1707, 14-2481 21 ord). So the district court only considered those facts included in the defendants’ statement of material facts. The plaintiffs do not object to any of the defendants’ statements of facts, so they do not quarrel with those facts being deemed admitted. See id. 56.1(b)(3)(C) (“All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party.”). But they argue that the district court should have excused their failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1 by not filing their own statement of facts and considered the expert report and witness affidavits which they submitted, concededly in violation of Rule 56.1, in order to prevent manifest injustice. We review the decision of a district court concerning compliance with local rules such as Rule 56.1 only for an abuse of discretion. Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104, 1108 (7th Cir. 2004). This court has repeatedly held that the district court is within its discretion to strictly enforce compliance with its local rules regarding summary-judgment motions, Patterson v. Ind. Newspapers, Inc., 589 F.3d 357, 360 (7th Cir. 2009), including by disregarding evidentiary documents because a required statement of facts was not filed, Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). While the plaintiffs’ attorney offers excuses here for his failure to comply, these excuses were not presented to the district court. District courts are not obliged to scour the record looking for factual disputes. Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 1994). The district court’s application of Rule 56.1 here was no abuse of discretion. 22 Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481
In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege Jeppesen negligently prepared the navigation charts the pilots used in conducting their approach to the Lockhart River airfield. They claim that the failure of Jeppesen’s charts to include the elevation of the terrain directly beneath the flight path, the failure to depict any terrain with colored contours and values, and the failure to depict an offset between the approach and the runway caused the pilots to believe they were safely flying over a valley and not over the mountain into which they ultimately crashed. They also allege that the manner in which other information was depicted and the failure to include certain information on the Jeppesen charts caused the pilots to become confused, lose situational awareness, believe they were further along the flight path than they were, descend below the minimum safe altitude and crash. The problem however is that the plaintiffs have failed to come forward with any evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer causation. Under Illinois law,6 in a products liability action, whether based on strict liability or negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate a causal relationship between the injury and the manufacturer’s product. Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411, 418 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Zimmer v. Celotex Corp., 549 N.E.2d 881, 883 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)). The causal relationship can be 6 Like the district court, we apply Illinois law because Jeppesen asserts, and the plaintiffs do not contest, that there is no conflict between federal, Illinois, and Queensland law on this issue. Gould, 1 F.3d at 549 n.7 (“Where the parties have not identified a conflict between the two bodies of state law that might apply to their dispute, we apply the law of the forum state—here, Illinois.”). Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481 23 proven by circumstantial evidence. Id. But in order to get to the jury, the plaintiff must demonstrate more than a mere possibility that the product caused the injury. Id. Rather, the plaintiff must come forward with evidence justifying an inference of probability. Id. First, we note that the plaintiffs say the district court imposed an incorrect burden on them. They claim that the district court required them to show that the defects in the defendants’ products probably contributed to the crash, but the plaintiffs’ only burden was to show an inference of probability. We disagree. The district court cited and applied the correct standard. Given that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 56.1, the district court tried to give them something by looking at the conclusions of the ATSB report to determine whether anything in the report supported causation. But the plaintiffs argue that reliance on the conclusions of this report was improper (despite relying upon the same report in trying to piece together evidence warranting an inference of causation). They claim that the district court should not have relied upon the inadmissible conclusions of the ATSB report because the ATSB report used a standard of a 66% or more likelihood to determine whether something was a “contributing safety factor,” but the burden in civil litigation in Illinois is only 50% or more likelihood. But the district court did not heighten the burden of proof for the plaintiffs. It knew that the report used a 66% or greater standard. It did not rely upon the ATSB report to find that the plaintiffs could not survive summary judgment. It relied on the fact that no evidence was properly before it that would warrant an inference of causation (since the plaintiffs had not complied with 24 Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481 Rule 56.1). It merely looked at the ATSB report to determine whether anything in it could warrant such an inference. But if we disregard the conclusions of the ATSB report—as the plaintiffs contend we should—we are still left with nothing to support an inference of causation. There is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Jeppesen’s charts probably contributed to the crash. No one survived the crash. There is no cockpit voice recording. We do not know for sure whether or not the pilots were using the Jeppesen charts when they descended. Even if they were using the charts, there is no evidence from which a jury could infer that the plaintiffs’ version of the accident actually occurred. The plaintiffs do not argue that the Jeppesen charts were inaccurate or did not comply with the ASA’s requirements. They mostly rely on the factual findings of the ATSB report which described various ways that the charts could have been improved. But they have nothing to establish that any flaws in the charts actually caused the pilots to lose situational awareness or otherwise decide to descend below the minimum safe altitude. The plaintiffs would like for us to allow this case to reach a jury based on the argument that because they can establish that the charts were flawed, we can infer that the charts probably contributed to the crash. But this speculation is impermissible. See Tragarz, 980 F.2d at 418; Rahic v. Satellite Air-Land Motor Serv., Inc., 24 N.E.3d 315, 322 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (“Liability against a defendant cannot be predicated on speculation, surmise, or conjecture.”). We agree with the district court that there was no evidence properly before the district court that Jeppesen’s Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481 25 charts probably contributed to the crash,7 so summary judgment was appropriate.
On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that Honeywell’s GPWS failed to give an alert and therefore caused the crash. They also claim that Honeywell negligently sold the GPWS to the initial operator when it knew the design of the GPWS was outdated and that the more effective EGPWS was available, and failed to advise this initial purchaser to get an EGPWS instead of a GPWS. First we must decide which law governs the plaintiffs’ claims against Honeywell. At summary judgment, Honeywell argued that the court should apply Washington law because the relevant conduct—the design and manufacture of the GPWS unit—occurred in Washington. However, on appeal, Honeywell no longer presses this argument, so it is waived. Ricci v. Arlington Heights, Ill., 116 F.3d 288, 292 (7th Cir. 1997) (arguments not raised in a brief are waived). Since the plaintiffs contend that Illinois law applies, Honeywell has not contested this, and the parties have not presented a 7 The plaintiffs argue that the district court went beyond the scope of Rule 56.1 by ignoring their references to evidence in the record submitted by the defendants, including deposition testimony from employees of the defendants. They reference these depositions in their arguments to this court as well. However, the full transcripts of these depositions were not part of the defendants’ summary judgment submissions. The evidence the plaintiffs seek to rely on was not properly before the district court. We have ignored it as well since our review is limited to the evidence properly before the district court. Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 596 (7th Cir. 2012). 26 Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481 conflict in the two bodies of law to this court, we apply Illinois law. See Gould, 1 F.3d at 549.
With respect to the plaintiffs’ defective or negligent design and manufacture claims, we find that, like Jeppesen, the plaintiffs have not presented any evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that any defect in the GPWS probably contributed to the crash. See Tragarz, 980 F.2d at 418. Again, the plaintiffs contend that the district court imposed a heightened burden regarding causation on them and that the district court improperly relied upon conclusions of the ATSB report. For the reasons stated in the Jeppesen discussion above, these arguments are rejected. No GPWS unit was found in the wreckage, so we do not know for sure whether the GPWS was on the Aircraft that day. The Aircraft’s cockpit voice recorder was not functioning, so it did not capture the crew’s dialogue or any alerts that a GPWS may have provided, and there are no surviving witnesses to testify about the performance of the GPWS. Because of these limitations, the plaintiffs rely largely on the ATSB report to argue that the GPWS was defective and its defects caused the crash.8 According to the factual findings of the ATSB report, a functioning GPWS would have given a “terrain, terrain” warning at 25 seconds before impact, which the pilots may have ignored because the same warning is given when an aircraft has cleared terrain. It also 8 Again, the plaintiffs seek to rely on other evidence which they failed to submit to the district court in compliance with Local Rule 56.1. The district court ignored that evidence, and so do we. See Blue, 698 F.3d at 596. Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481 27 would have given a “terrain, terrain, pull up” warning at five seconds before impact. The plaintiffs argue that the GPWS computer must have been defective because the flight crew did not pull up as the plane approached the South Pap ridge. A functioning GPWS would have given an alert five seconds before impact, but the flight crew did not pull up in a manner that would indicate a response to the five-second warning. But regardless, according to the ATSB report, an alert five seconds before impact would not have provided the flight crew with enough time to avoid crashing into the ridge (and the plaintiffs do not contend that it would have). So even if the plane was fitted with a GPWS manufactured by Honeywell, and the GPWS malfunctioned or was defective as the plaintiffs claim, the plaintiffs have not presented any evidence from which a jury could conclude that any defect in the GPWS contributed to the crash. We note that at times, the plaintiffs also seem to argue that the GPWS was defective because it did not give more advanced warnings like the EGPWS would have. Expert testimony is required to establish that a product is defective or unreasonably dangerous, Show v. Ford Motor Co., 659 F.3d 584, 588 (7th Cir. 2011), but the plaintiffs have failed to present such evidence. Also, a product is not defective simply because an improved product hits the market that does more than the previous version. See Salerno v. Innovative Surveillance Tech., Inc., 932 N.E2d 101, 111 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (stating a manufacturer’s duty to design reasonably safe products “does not require the product to reflect the safest design possible … . [T]he threshold question is not whether the product could have been made safer, but whether it is dangerous because it fails to perform in the manner reasonably 28 Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481 to be expected in light of its nature and intended function.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
And with this mention of the EGPWS, we move to the plaintiffs’ last claim on appeal, which is that the district court erred in finding that Honeywell did not have a duty to warn operators of the need to install an EGPWS. The plaintiffs contend that the district court failed to consider their claim that Honeywell did not advise the initial purchaser of the GPWS (the Mexican airline) of the alleged “defects” in the GPWS and that it should instead purchase an EGPWS. In their opening brief, the plaintiffs did not contest the district court’s finding that Honeywell did not have a duty to warn Transair, so that argument is waived. See Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561, 568 (7th Cir. 2012). In their reply brief, the plaintiffs cite generally Proctor v. Davis, 682 N.E.2d 1203 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) and Fuller v. FendAll Co., 388 N.E.2d 964 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979) for the proposition that Honeywell had a duty to warn the initial purchaser of defects in the design of the GPWS. We agree with Honeywell that this argument is likely waived, since the plaintiffs did not cite to any legal authority to support their proposition that Honeywell had a duty in their opening brief. See Mahaffey v. Ramos, 588 F.3d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Perfunctory, undeveloped arguments without discussion or citation to pertinent legal authority are waived.”). But even turning to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim, we agree with the district court that Honeywell did not have a duty to warn the initial purchaser. That is because the plaintiffs have not established that there was any “defect” in the design of the GPWS of which to warn. They failed to comply with Nos. 14-1707, 14-2481 29 Rule 56.1, so little evidence in their favor is properly before this court. They have offered no evidence that the GPWS was actually defectively designed or dangerous. Their failure to come forward with expert testimony regarding any alleged design defect or dangerousness is fatal to their claim. See Salerno, 932 N.E.2d at 112 (“Because products liability actions involve specialized knowledge or expertise outside of a layman’s knowledge, the plaintiff must provide expert testimony” to establish the product’s dangerousness.). Because the plaintiffs’ claims of defect and causation are not supported by any evidence properly before the district court and because Honeywell owed no duty to warn any operator of the Aircraft of the alleged defects in the GPWS, the district court properly granted Honeywell’s motion for summary judgment.