Bavis v. UAL Corp.

811 F. Supp. 2d 883, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107232
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 7, 2011
DocketNo. 21 MC 101 AKH, 02 CIV. 7154
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 811 F. Supp. 2d 883 (Bavis v. UAL Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bavis v. UAL Corp., 811 F. Supp. 2d 883, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107232 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Opinion

ORDER AND OPINION REGULATING BURDENS OF PROOF AND ISSUES FOR JURY INSTRUCTIONS

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge:

This case is the last remaining wrongful-death action of the 95 originally filed. Trial is to begin November 7, 2011. The parties seek rulings on certain basic issues: (i) whether federal law preempts state law on the standard of care applicable to Defendants’ conduct; (ii) whether, if federal law is preemptive, what is the standard regulating defendants’ conduct, and what should be the order and burdens of proof; and (iii) what categories of damages Plaintiff may recover. In this Order and Opinion, I address the first two questions; the issue of damages will be addressed in a later Order and Opinion.

I. Introductory Facts

On the morning of September 11, 2001, five terrorists — Arwan al Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, and Mohand al Shehri — boarded United Airlines Flight 175, scheduled to depart from Boston’s Logan International Airport and destined for Los Angeles. They passed through a security checkpoint controlled by United Airlines and managed by its security contractor, Huntleigh USA Corporation. The flight left the gate at 7:58 am, departed from Logan Airport at 8:14 am, and reached a cruising altitude of 31,000 feet by 8:33 am. At some time between 8:42 am and 8:46 am, the five terrorists began their attack, using stabbing weapons, mace, and a bomb threat to kill members of the flight crew and to control the passengers. By 8:58 am, it is believed, the hijackers had taken control of the airplane and diverted it toward New York City. At 9:03 am, United Airlines Flight 175 struck Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. The impact caused the immediate deaths of all on board.1

Two weeks after the events of September 11, Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (“ATSSSA”), 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq., to provide (among other objectives) a cause of action for “damages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes” of the airlines seized by terrorists that fateful day, ATSSSA § 408(b)(1), and to provide exclusive jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for all cases arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, id. § 408(b)(3); see generally In re Sept. 11 Litig., 600 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D.N.Y.2009).

[886]*886In this case, the Plaintiff, Mary Bavis, suing on her own behalf and as the representative of the estate of her son, Mark Bavis, alleges that Defendants United Airlines and Huntleigh USA Corporation were negligent in allowing terrorists to board Flight 175 and then, using weapons, to take it over and crash it, thereby causing the death of Mark Bavis, her son. Defendants acknowledge that the events of September 11, 2001, were tragic, but deny that they were negligent.

II. The Governing Law

Under ATSSSA, “[t]here shall exist a Federal cause of action for damages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes of ... United flightf ] 175, on September 11, 2001.” Id. § 408(b)(1). The Court is to apply “the law ... including choice of law principles, of the State in which the crash occurred unless such law is inconsistent with or preempted by Federal law.” ATSSSA § 408(b)(2). Under New York law, as a general matter, the elements of a wrongful-death action are “(1) the death of a human being born alive; (2) a wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant by which the decedent’s death was caused, provided the defendant would have been liable to the deceased had death not ensued; (3) the survival of distributees who suffered pecuniary loss by reason of the death of decedent; and (4) the appointment of a personal representative of the decedent.” Chong v. New York City Transit Auth., 83 A.D.2d 546, 441 N.Y.S.2d 24, 25-26 (N.Y. Second App. Div.1981). A key issue in this case, and the focus of this Order and Opinion, is the second element, whether Defendants committed some wrongful act or act of negligence.

The first step in the analysis is to set out the applicable federal statutes. There are two to consider, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub.L. No. 85-726, 72 Stat. 744, and the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-604, 104 Stat. 3066. The Federal Aviation Act, the first statute to set out requirements and standards of safety for airlines, deals with safety in the building, maintaining, and operating of aircraft. It is codified in Chapter 447 of Title 49, and is named “Safety Regulation.” The statute requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to prescribe regulations that promote safe design, construction, maintenance and operation of airplanes, to conform to “minimum safety standards” that the Administrator also is to prescribe, to “reduce or eliminate the possibility or recurrence of accidents,” and, in general, to “consider the duty of an air carrier to provide service with the highest degree of safety in the public interest.” 49 U.S.C. § 44701. In relevant part, the statute provides:

(a) PROMOTING SAFETY. — The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing—
(1) Minimum standards required in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design, material construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers;
(2) regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for—
(A) inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances;
(B) equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling, and
(C) a qualified private person, instead of an officer of employee of the Administration, to examine and report on the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling;
[887]*887(3) regulations required in the interest of safety for the reserve supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and aircraft fuel and oil, including the reserve supply of fuel and oil carried in flight;
(4) regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers; and
(5) regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
(b) PRESCRIBING MINIMUM
SAFETY STANDARDS. — The Administrator may prescribe minimum safety standards for—
(1) an air carrier to whom a certificate is issued under section 44705 of this title; and
(2) operating an airport serving any passenger operation of air carrier aircraft designed for at least 31 passenger seats.
(c) REDUCING AND ELIMINATING ACCIDENTS.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re September 11 Litigation
811 F. Supp. 2d 883 (S.D. New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
811 F. Supp. 2d 883, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bavis-v-ual-corp-nysd-2011.