Gomez Trial Attorneys

Get A Free Consultation Today! 619-237-3490

Aviation Legal Update

A federal appellate court in Narayanan et al. v. British Airways (No. 11-5580, 2014 WL 1057304; 9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014) has decided that the family of a British Airways passenger, who died six months after the carrier allegedly denied him supplemental oxygen, will have their claim barred, holding that they should have filed suit within two years of the flight rather than within two years of his death.

A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit dismissed Susheele Narayanan’s wrongful-death suit on March 19, 2014, finding that the Montreal Convention’s two year filing window relates back to the flight’s arrival, not to the later date of her husband’s death.

“We must decide whether [the treaty’s timing] strictures apply equally to a claim which had not yet accrued at the time that the Convention’s two year limitations period was triggered. We hold that under the plain language of the Convention, the answer is yes,” according to the Ninth Circuit.

The suit claimed that crew from Narayanan’s December 2008, flight from London to India knew about his late-stage lung disease, promised him access to his supplemental oxygen, but ultimately denied him use of the oxygen system, exacerbating his terminal condition and hastening his death. Narayanan died six months after the flight.

The wrongful death suit stated claims under the Montreal Convention on international aviation. The Convention governs the rights and liabilities of international air carriers and passengers, and provides for strict liability against airlines in connection with in-flight “accidents,” or unusual events that injure a passenger through no fault of his own.

On appeal, the Narayanans argued that the treaty’s filing window could not fairly apply to claims until they accrue because a prospective plaintiff has nothing to sue over until an injury manifests itself. The Narayananans family argued the panel could avoid the injustice by applying California state law instead.
The court rejected their argument, reasoning that the treaty’s limitations clause, Article 35(1), expressly provides that in situations like Narayanan’s, only the plane’s arrival triggers the limitations period. “The plain language of Article 35(1) leaves no room for flexibility as to the commencement of the limitations period,” Judge Nguyen wrote. “By urging us to evaluate the timeliness of their claim under the Convention based upon the date upon which it accrued under California law, plaintiffs effectively ask us to write an implied . . . trigger into the Convention’s terms. This we cannot do.”

The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, on April 21, 2014, to Lisabeth Moore, the widow of Daniel Hart, who was killed in a 2007, accident involving a Hawker Beechcraft airplane sold in 1970.

Moore sued the Wichita, Kansas aircraft company in 2009, claiming that a defect in the plane’s flap system caused the crash, and that the company had known about the problem but failed to alert federal regulators.

A lower court found the case time-barred under the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994.The Act, also known as GARA, was intended to counteract the effects of prolonged product liability on general aviation aircraft manufacturers, by limiting the duration of their liability for the aircraft they produce. GARA amended the Federal Aviation Act to add a statute of repose that protects manufacturers from civil liability for parts or planes made 18 years or more before the accident at issue.

Moore argued that the company should be held liable because it knowingly misrepresented information about the part to the Federal Aviation Administration, which would exclude it from GARA’s liability shield. She urged the United States Supreme Court to take up the case to provide greater clarity to lower courts on how to apply that exception.

Without commenting, the high court turned aside the petition.

When Moore filed her lawsuit in Delaware’s New Castle County Superior Court in 2009, she brought claims for strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty. Moving for summary judgment, Beechcraft argued that the statute of repose shielded the company from liability because the Beech Duke aircraft that Hart was flying was originally sold in 1970, well before the 18 year limit. Moore opposed Beechcraft’s motion, arguing GARA had explicitly carved out exceptions for cases in which a manufacturer knowingly misrepresents pertinent information to the FAA about a plane’s safety. She alleged that when the Beech Duke was initially made, Beechcraft concealed knowledge from the FAA about a design defect that could lead to the kind of malfunction that caused Hart’s crash. Beechcraft denied such allegations.

In addition, Moore argued that Beechcraft had replaced the defective part in question just 13 years ago, well before the 18 year limit on lawsuits ran out.

Judge Mary Johnston sided with Beechcraft in 2011, and granted summary judgment. Moore et al. v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., No. 9C-12-010, 2011 WL 6400670 (Del. Super. Ct., New Castle County 2011). The court ruled that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that either GARA’s knowing-misrepresentation or the new parts exception applied.

Related Content:

Our Process... Easy as 1. 2. 3!

Call Us

We will determine your case and submit

We get to work

You will get regular update from us

Win the trial

Collect your compensation

  • “John helped me find doctors, he referred me to his neurologist, his physical therapist, I mean, anything I needed he was right there, every step of the way. I couldn’t have asked for a better result from all of this, I would absolutely recommend Gomez Trial Attorneys.”

  • “During the time I was working with Gomez Trial Attorneys, they treated me very, very well. 100% of the time, they believed me, and they were very compassionate. They felt sorry for what happened and they understood the therapy process.”

  • “They held my hand the whole time and kept me in the loop every aspect of my case which was very refreshing to me. They helped me get my settlement offer as fast as possible and I was able to keep my farm”

  • “The Gomez experience was the best experience it could be for me really, only positive things to say. They really were there every step if the way. Thanks to Gomez Trial Attorneys my dad is able to support my family as a single father”

  • “He opened the door for me to join his firm to help other brain Injury survivors and I never met another firm who is like this who was so understanding and caring who took the extra step and walked the extra mile with their clients and this is the best”

  • “I am very satisfied with the outcome with Gomez and I would definitely recommend Gomez to anybody, we tell people all the time, Get Gomez! They are really thorough with everything and they make you feel real comfortable.”

  • “Just helped us through, guided us through, I kept notes all those years, we had questions all the time and they would always keep us informed of what was going on. They just unlayered it, layer by layer, I’ve never seen anything like them. Thank God for them.”

Get your
free consultation

No Fees Until We Win


24/7 Support & Free Consultation

San Diego

(619) 237-3490

755 Front Street
San Diego, CA 92101

El Centro

(760) 259-2166

301 S 8 street

Solana Beach

(858) 400-4333



(951) 355-7770



(951) 900-3440

2 Better World Cir, Suite 220, Temecula, CA 92590

St. Petersburg

(727) 500-1076

880 21st ave n
St. Petersburg, FL 33704