Vreeland v. Ferrer
71 So.3d 70, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1583, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 441 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal aviation statute limiting the liability of out-of-possession aircraft owners, 49 U.S.C. § 44112, preempts state tort law only for injuries to persons or property on the surface of the earth beneath an aircraft. It does not preempt state law claims, such as those under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine, for injuries or death sustained by passengers or crew inside the aircraft.
Facts:
- Aerolease of America, Inc. (Aerolease) owned an airplane.
- Aerolease entered into an agreement to lease the airplane to Danny Ferrer for one year.
- On January 14, 2005, the airplane, piloted by Donald Palas and carrying passenger Jose Martinez, took off from an airport in Lakeland, Florida.
- During the flight, the airplane crashed.
- Both the pilot, Palas, and the passenger, Martinez, were killed in the crash.
- At the time of the crash, the aircraft was not in the actual possession or control of Aerolease.
Procedural Posture:
- John Vreeland, as personal representative of the Martinez estate, filed a wrongful death action against Aerolease in a Florida trial court.
- Aerolease moved for summary judgment, arguing Vreeland's vicarious liability claim was preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 44112.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Aerolease, holding that the federal statute preempted Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
- Vreeland (appellant) appealed the decision to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Aerolease (appellee) on the preemption issue.
- Vreeland (petitioner) sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which accepted jurisdiction to resolve a conflict with a prior decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal limitation of liability statute, 49 U.S.C. § 44112, which applies to death or injury occurring "on land or water," preempt Florida's common law dangerous instrumentality doctrine as applied to an aircraft owner for the death of a passenger inside the aircraft?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No. The federal statute limiting an owner's liability for death or injury 'on land or water' does not preempt Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine for injuries to passengers inside an aircraft. A detailed review of the statute's legislative history reveals that its original purpose in 1948 was to shield owners from absolute liability imposed by the Uniform Aeronautics Act (UAA) for damages caused to persons and property on the ground. The UAA treated liability for passengers separately, under general state tort law. By using the specific phrase 'on the surface of the earth' (now 'on land or water'), Congress intended to limit preemption to ground-based injuries, not to disturb state law remedies for passengers. This interpretation is consistent with the strong presumption against preempting state tort law and the federal aviation code's savings clause, which preserves other legal remedies.
Dissenting - Polston, J.
Yes. The federal statute preempts Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine in this case. The plain meaning of the statute's language, 'on land or water,' should control. When the aircraft crashed, Martinez's death occurred 'on land,' regardless of the fact that he was inside the aircraft at the moment of impact. The majority's interpretation, which distinguishes between a person on the ground and a person inside a crashing plane, 'defies reality' and ignores the unambiguous text of the federal law, which was designed to shield an out-of-possession owner like Aerolease from vicarious liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the preemptive scope of 49 U.S.C. § 44112, preserving state common law remedies for passengers and crew injured in aviation accidents. By limiting the federal shield to 'ground damage' cases, the ruling clarifies that out-of-possession aircraft owners and lessors remain exposed to state-law vicarious liability doctrines, such as Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine, for in-flight incidents. This holding reinforces the presumption against federal preemption in areas of traditional state concern, like tort law, and is likely to influence how other jurisdictions interpret the federal statute's reach.
