Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co.
707 F.2d 671 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a diversity action, when the forum state's highest court has not addressed the choice-of-law rule for aviation torts, a federal court may predict it would abandon the rigid rule of lex loci delicti in favor of the 'most significant relationship' test. Furthermore, mass-produced, commercially sold navigational charts are considered 'products' for the purposes of strict products liability.
Facts:
- Jeppesen & Company, a Colorado corporation, produced and mass-marketed navigational charts for pilots.
- Braniff International purchased these charts in Colorado for its pilots, including Captain Willard Vernon Wahlund, a resident of Connecticut.
- Wahlund was flying his personal aircraft from West Virginia towards Connecticut with his father and son as passengers.
- A Jeppesen area chart in Wahlund's possession erroneously designated the Martinsburg, West Virginia airport with 'ILS' (Instrument Landing System), indicating the availability of a full precision landing system including a glidescope for vertical guidance.
- In reality, the Martinsburg airport was only equipped with a localizer beam for horizontal guidance and lacked a glidescope.
- Relying on the chart, Wahlund diverted his flight to Martinsburg and requested an ILS approach from air traffic control.
- During the landing attempt, the aircraft crashed into a ridge while in alignment with the runway, killing all three occupants.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrators of the estates of Willard Wahlund and his son, Erik, filed separate wrongful death actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The complaints named Jeppesen & Company as a defendant, asserting claims of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability.
- The actions against Jeppesen were consolidated for trial.
- A jury returned verdicts against Jeppesen on all theories of liability.
- Following a separate trial on damages, the jury awarded the estates a total of $1,505,000.
- The district court denied Jeppesen's post-trial motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Jeppesen, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a diversity action where the forum state has not decided the choice-of-law rule for aviation torts, does the traditional rule of lex loci delicti (law of the place of injury) govern, or may a court apply the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Circuit Judge
No, the traditional rule of lex loci delicti does not govern; a court may apply the 'most significant relationship' test to determine the applicable substantive law in an aviation accident case. The court predicted that the Connecticut Supreme Court would abandon the lex loci delicti rule for aviation accidents because the place of injury in such cases is often 'wholly fortuitous and unimportant.' Applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 'most significant relationship' test, Colorado law governs because Jeppesen is a Colorado corporation where the charts were designed, manufactured, and sold. This application of Colorado law was foreseeable to Jeppesen, whereas West Virginia's only connection was the happenstance of the crash. The court also held that the mass-produced navigational charts are 'products,' not services, making Jeppesen subject to claims for strict products liability under § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Dissenting - Cardamone, Circuit Judge
Yes, the traditional rule of lex loci delicti should govern. The federal court was bound by existing Connecticut law, which, as affirmed in the recent case of Gibson v. Fullin, consistently applies the lex loci delicti rule in tort actions. The Connecticut Supreme Court has explicitly considered and rejected abandoning this rule, even in a compelling automobile accident case where all parties were from Connecticut but the accident was in Florida. The majority's attempt to create a special exception for aviation accidents is a 'strained distinction' with no support in Connecticut precedent. A federal court in a diversity case must apply the state's established choice-of-law rules, not predict a change that the state's highest court has declined to make.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing a key departure from traditional, rigid choice-of-law rules in the context of modern, interstate transportation torts. It illustrates how federal courts, under the Erie doctrine, may predict a change in state law when the state's highest court has not ruled on a specific issue, particularly where the traditional rule (lex loci delicti) produces arbitrary results. The holding also broadened the scope of strict products liability by classifying mass-produced informational materials like navigational charts as 'products,' thereby holding their publishers to the same high standard as manufacturers of tangible goods. This impacts publishers of data-driven materials by exposing them to liability beyond negligence for errors in their widely distributed content.
