Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
577 P.2d 1322, 282 Or. 61, 97 A.L.R. 3d 606 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability case based on a design defect theory, the plaintiff must prove not only that a safer alternative design was technically feasible, but also that it was practicable in terms of cost and its effect on the product's overall design and operation.
Facts:
- In 1966, Piper Aircraft Corporation manufactured a Piper Cherokee airplane.
- On January 22, 1971, the airplane took off with a student pilot, an instructor, and two passengers, Douglas Wilson and Arbie MacDonald.
- The plane entered a cloud and crashed in the Cascade Mountains.
- All four occupants survived the initial impact of the crash.
- Wilson and MacDonald, who were in the rear passenger seats, died at the crash site before rescuers arrived.
- The plaintiffs alleged the crash was caused by engine failure from carburetor icing, and that the deaths were partially caused by design defects in the rear passenger compartment, including inadequate seatbelts and a lack of shoulder harnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representatives for Douglas Wilson and Arbie MacDonald (plaintiffs) filed two separate wrongful death lawsuits against Piper Aircraft Corporation (defendant) in an Oregon trial court.
- The two cases were consolidated for trial.
- A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded substantial damages.
- Piper Aircraft Corporation, as the defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 products liability action alleging a design defect, must a plaintiff, in order to get the case to a jury, present sufficient evidence that a proposed safer alternative design is practicable?
Opinions:
Majority - Holman, J.
Yes. In a products liability action for a design defect, the plaintiff must prove that a proposed safer alternative design was practicable. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show more than the technical possibility of a safer design; they must present evidence that the alternative is also practicable in terms of cost and its impact on the product's overall design and utility. While compliance with government safety standards, such as FAA approval, is not a complete defense, it is relevant evidence for the court to consider. In this case, plaintiffs showed that a fuel-injected engine was a technically feasible alternative to the carbureted engine prone to icing, but they failed to produce any evidence about the alternative's effect on cost, maintenance, performance, or overall safety. Without such evidence of practicability, the issue of the engine's design defect should not have been submitted to the jury.
Concurring - Linde, J.
Yes. While agreeing with the majority, the concurrence emphasizes that when an expert government agency like the FAA has specifically approved a product's design after a rigorous safety evaluation, a court should not allow a jury to second-guess that judgment de novo. The common-law risk-utility balancing test for design defects often mirrors the analysis conducted by the regulatory agency. Therefore, a design defect claim should only proceed if the plaintiff can show either that the agency's safety standards are less demanding than those of tort law, or that the agency failed to actually consider and rule on the specific defect alleged in the lawsuit. The burden should first be on the defendant to show the agency made the relevant safety judgment, and then on the plaintiff to show that judgment was inadequate or inapplicable.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the plaintiff's burden of proof in complex design defect cases, establishing the 'practicability' requirement for alternative designs. It moves beyond merely showing a safer design was possible, requiring plaintiffs to present evidence on the economic and engineering trade-offs involved. This raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, making such cases more reliant on detailed expert testimony and potentially more difficult to bring. The ruling also gives substantial weight to a manufacturer's compliance with comprehensive regulatory schemes like FAA certification, even though it stops short of making such compliance an absolute defense.
Unlock the full brief for Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp.