Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Vicarious Liability of Aircraft Owners and Lessors: A Chink in the Armor?
In 2005, the Superior Court of Rhode Island held that '44112 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code did not protect the owner and lessor of an aircraft from vicarious liability for negligence of a lessee of the aircraft. Coleman v. Windham Aviation Inc., No. CIV A K.C. 2004-0985, 2005 WL 1793907 (R.I. Super. July 18, 2005). This opinion is unsettling to aircraft owners, lessors, and secured parties who for many years have relied on a plain reading of '44112 to provide statutory protection from the imposition of vicarious liability. In light of the decision in Windham (and others discussed below), owners, lessors, of aircraft must be aware of the possibility that a state court may very well impose vicarious liability.
Because of the clear and unambiguous language of '44112 and its predecessors, including '1404 of the Federal Aviation Act, aircraft owners, lessors, and lenders have understandably done business in reliance on its clear protections:
(a) (1) 'lessor' means a person leasing for at least 30 days a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.
(2) 'owner' means a person that owns a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.
(3) 'secured party' means a person having a security interest in, or security title to, a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller under a conditional sales contract, equipment trust contract, chattel or corporate mortgage, or similar instrument.(b) Liability. A lessor, owner or secured party is liable for personal injury, death or property loss or damage on land or water only when a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller is in the actual possession or control of the lessor, owner or secured party, and the personal injury, death, or property loss or damage occurs because of ' (1) the aircraft, engine, or propeller; or (2) the flight of, or an object falling from, the aircraft, engine or propeller.
Notwithstanding this statutory protection against vicarious liability, which has existed in some form since 1948, the cases in this area are inconsistent at best
and generally give little comfort to the aviation community with regard to the
imposition of vicarious liability. The matter is complicated by the fact that many states still have laws most of which were adopted in the infancy of aviation, which provide that operators are strictly liable and owners are vicariously liable for damages caused by an aircraft. See, e.g., R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 1-4-3 (2006).
Windham and Other State Court Decisions
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?