GARA Precludes Claims Against Type Certificate Holder for Alleged Seat Slip Defect

Farrar v. Textron Aviation, Inc., et al., 2024 WL 5182913 (Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2024)

The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed a Kansas trial court’s decision, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims against Textron Aviation were precluded under the 18-year statute of repose found in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (“GARA”) and rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument as to the applicability of GARA’s misrepresentation exception to the case.

The action arose from a March 2016 accident involving a 1979 Cessna 172N aircraft. During a training flight, plaintiff Arrin Farrar, a student pilot, sustained serious injuries. The accident was caused by the flight instructor’s seat shifting backward during takeoff, which caused the instructor to lose control of the aircraft.

Cessna held the type certificate for 172N aircraft until 2015 when it was transferred to defendant Textron as part of the Textron-Cessna merger.  The accident aircraft was initially sold to a purchaser in July 1979.

GARA was enacted in 1994 to revitalize the general aviation industry following a decline in the manufacture and sale of general aviation aircraft. The statute provides an 18-year statute of repose protecting manufacturers from long-term liability from accidents involving general aviation aircraft or components over 18 years old. The 18-year statute begins either on the date the aircraft was delivered to its first purchaser or lessee if delivered by the manufacturer or on the date the aircraft was first delivered to a person engaged in selling or leasing the aircraft.

Given that the accident aircraft was initially sold and delivered in 1979, unless a GARA exception applied, the statute of repose extinguished the plaintiffs’ cause of action in 1997, almost 20 years before the accident occurred.

The plaintiffs argued that the misrepresentation exception applied, which allows claims when plaintiffs establish that the manufacturer “(1) knowingly misrepresents, conceals, or withholds, (2) required information from the FAA, that is (3) causally related to the accident.”  To trigger the exception, the plaintiffs had to establish that the manufacturer had an affirmative duty to report the information.

The plaintiffs argued that the type certificate holder was required to report the seat slip issue to the FAA under 14 CFR 21.3 or 14 CFR 183.63. The court found the reporting requirements under 21.3 inapplicable and that the requirement under 183.63 applied only after GARA's statute of repose extinguished the plaintiffs’ cause of action.

14 CFR 21.3(a) requires the holder of a type certificate to report “any failure, malfunction, or defect in any product or article manufactured by it that it determines has resulted in… any structural or flight control system malfunction, defect, or failure which causes an interference with normal control of the aircraft for which derogates the flying qualities.”  The court found the reporting requirement under 21.3(a) inapplicable because evidence of prior seat slip accidents or incidents were all reported to the FAA or NTSB by third parties, relieving the type certificate holder of the obligation to report such failures, malfunctions, or defects.

14 CFR 21.3(b) requires the holder of a type certificate to report when a product is dangerous because it did not conform with its approved design in its type certificate.  There was no evidence in this case that the product did not conform to its approved design.

14 CFR 21.3(f) requires the holder of the production approval to report the results of its investigation to the FAA upon request by the FAA if an accident investigation or service difficulty report shows a product or article manufactured was unsafe due to a manufacturing or design data defect.  In this case, there was no evidence of a manufacturing or design data defect.  Even if there was such evidence, the FAA did not request an investigation report.

Last, 14 CFR 183.63 requires an Organization Designation Authorization Holder to report either (1) “a condition in a product, part, or appliance that could result in a finding of unsafe condition by the Administrator” or (2) “a product, part, or appliance not meeting the applicable airworthiness requirements for any which the ODA Holder has obtained or issued a certificate or approval.”  However, 14 CFR 183.63 was enacted in 2005, several years after the GARA statute of repose extinguished the plaintiffs’ cause of action.  The court found that the new reporting requirement could not resurrect the plaintiffs’ cause of action.