Aviation Accident Claims in Georgia: Pursuing Compensation for Plane Crashes and Air Travel Injuries

Published Read 8 min read

On this page

After a plane crash, federal law decides several things a Georgia claim can and cannot do. Courts disagree over whether federal law supplies the standard of care in aviation safety. A federal statute of repose can end a claim against the maker of a small aircraft or its parts before any fault is weighed. The National Transportation Safety Board’s report cannot be admitted into evidence or used in the civil action. A claim against the United States must first go to the responsible federal agency, on a two-year clock. And for a passenger injured on an international trip, the Montreal Convention sets the conditions of the airline’s liability and its own deadline for suit.

Whether Federal Law Sets the Standard of Care

Abdullah was decided June 23, 1999, on a certified question: “Does federal law preempt the standards for air safety, but preserve State and Territorial damage remedies?” The Third Circuit answered “yes” to both parts. It wrote that, “contrary to courts that have found that federal law does not preempt state and territorial air safety standards, or that federal law only preempts discrete aspects thereof, we find implied federal preemption of the entire field of aviation safety,” and that, “despite federal preemption of the standards of care, state and territorial damage remedies still exist for violation of those standards.” It also wrote: “we hold that federal law establishes the applicable standards of care in the field of air safety, generally, thus preempting the entire field from state and territorial regulation.”

Abdullah recognized that other courts had gone the other way. It wrote that “[a] number of courts have, however, continued to use the state law standard of care, along with state remedies,” and cited, among others, Public Health Trust v. Lake Aircraft, Inc., 992 F.2d 291, 294-95 (11th Cir. 1993). Abdullah is a Third Circuit decision, and the Eleventh Circuit decision is described here only as Abdullah cited it.

The General Aviation Revitalization Act

Section 2(a) of the Act provides that, “[e]xcept as provided in subsection (b), no civil action for damages for death or injury to persons or damage to property arising out of an accident involving a general aviation aircraft may be brought against the manufacturer of the aircraft or the manufacturer of any new component, system, subassembly, or other part of the aircraft, in its capacity as a manufacturer if the accident occurred” after “the applicable limitation period” beginning on “the date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser or lessee, if delivered directly from the manufacturer,” or on “the date of first delivery of the aircraft to a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing such aircraft,” or, “with respect to any new component, system, subassembly, or other part which replaced another component, system, subassembly, or other part originally in, or which was added to, the aircraft, and which is alleged to have caused such death, injury, or damage, after the applicable limitation period beginning on the date of completion of the replacement or addition.” Section 3(3) defines the limitation period as “18 years with respect to general aviation aircraft and the components, systems, subassemblies, and other parts of such aircraft.”

A “general aviation aircraft” is one for which a type certificate or an airworthiness certificate has been issued, “which, at the time such certificate was originally issued, had a maximum seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, and which was not, at the time of the accident, engaged in scheduled passenger-carrying operations” (Section 2(c)). Section 2(b) provides that subsection (a) does not apply:

  • “if the claimant pleads with specificity the facts necessary to prove, and proves, that the manufacturer” with respect to a type certificate, an airworthiness certificate, or continuing airworthiness “knowingly misrepresented to the Federal Aviation Administration, or concealed or withheld from the Federal Aviation Administration, required information that is material and relevant to the performance or the maintenance or operation of such aircraft, or the component, system, subassembly, or other part, that is causally related to the harm which the claimant allegedly suffered”;
  • “if the person for whose injury or death the claim is being made is a passenger for purposes of receiving treatment for a medical or other emergency”;
  • “if the person for whose injury or death the claim is being made was not aboard the aircraft at the time of the accident”; or
  • “to an action brought under a written warranty enforceable under law but for the operation of this Act.”

Under Section 2(d), the section “supersedes any State law to the extent that such law permits a civil action described in subsection (a) to be brought after the applicable limitation period for such civil action established by subsection (a).”

For example, imagine a general aviation aircraft delivered to its first purchaser 22 years before an accident, with a replacement fuel pump installed 6 years before it. Counted from delivery of the aircraft, the accident falls after the 18-year period. Counted from completion of the replacement, it falls within the period, which the text applies to a replacement part “alleged to have caused such death, injury, or damage.” The arithmetic says nothing about fault or the exceptions.

Injuries on International Flights

A passenger’s injury claim against an airline is governed by the Montreal Convention of 1999 when the trip is international carriage as the Convention defines it: carriage in which, under the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination are in two States Parties, or in a single State Party with an agreed stopping place in another State (Article 1(2)). Article 17(1) provides: “The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”

Under Article 21, the carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability for those damages up to a threshold stated in Special Drawing Rights; above the threshold, it is not liable if it proves that the damage was not due to its negligence or other wrongful act or omission, or was solely due to a third party’s. The Convention’s limits are reviewed at five-year intervals (Article 24). Any action for damages “can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention,” and “punitive, exemplary or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable” (Article 29). For a passenger’s death or injury, suit may also be brought in the State Party where the passenger had a principal and permanent residence at the time of the accident, if the carrier operates passenger services to or from that State and conducts its passenger business there from premises leased or owned by itself or by a carrier with which it has a commercial agreement (Article 33(2)). “The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped” (Article 35(1)).

The Safety Board Report

49 U.S.C. 1154(b) provides: “No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.”

Claims Against the United States

A suit for injury or death caused by a federal employee’s negligent or wrongful act or omission within the scope of employment cannot begin until the claim has gone to the responsible federal agency and the agency has denied it finally, in writing, by certified or registered mail; if six months pass after filing without a final disposition, the claimant may choose, at any later time, to regard the claim as denied (28 U.S.C. 2675(a)). Two time limits follow in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b): two years from accrual to present the claim in writing to the agency, and six months from the mailing of the agency’s final denial to begin suit; a claim that meets neither is forever barred.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the 18-year limit protect an airline flying a scheduled passenger route?
No. An aircraft that was engaged in scheduled passenger-carrying operations at the time of the accident falls outside the Act’s definition of a general aviation aircraft (Section 2(c)), so the repose period does not reach that accident.

Does the 18-year limit protect a pilot, an owner, or a maintenance shop?
Not by its terms. Section 2(a) bars actions against the manufacturer of the aircraft, or of a new part, sued in its capacity as a manufacturer; it does not name pilots, owners, operators, or maintenance providers.

Does the Montreal Convention govern a domestic trip within the United States?
Not when the trip, as agreed between the passenger and the carrier, both begins and ends in the United States with no agreed stopping place in another State. The Convention’s international carriage requires a place of departure and a place of destination in two States Parties, or in one State Party with an agreed stopping place in another State (Article 1(2)).

  • Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999); Public Health Trust v. Lake Aircraft, Inc., 992 F.2d 291 (11th Cir. 1993) (as cited in Abdullah)
  • General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-298, §§ 2, 3 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)
  • Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal, 1999), Articles 1, 17, 21, 24, 29, 33, 35
  • 49 U.S.C. 1154(b)
  • 28 U.S.C. 2675(a); 28 U.S.C. 2401(b)

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about the federal provisions that bear on aviation accident claims. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The federal deadlines and repose periods described here can bar a claim, and their application depends on the facts. Anyone injured in an aviation accident should consult a licensed attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Related posts:

  1. School Playground Injuries in Georgia For a child hurt on a Georgia school playground, the claim depends first on who owns and runs the school and on what the child's legal status was on the......
  2. Workplace Vehicle Accidents in Georgia: Third-Party Claims for On-the-Job Crashes A worker hurt in a crash on the job in Georgia can receive workers' compensation benefits through the employer and can also sue a third party who caused the crash.......
  3. Employer Intentional Torts in Georgia: When Workers’ Compensation Doesn’t Apply A worker deliberately harmed by an employer in Georgia meets a workers' compensation chapter written as the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer, and the text of the exclusivity provision......
  4. Rideshare Driver Injury Claims: When Uber and Lyft Drivers Get Hurt Which insurance pays for a rideshare driver's crash in Georgia depends on what the driver's app was doing at the moment of impact. Georgia's statute on rideshare insurance, which calls......
  5. Workplace Toxic Exposure in Georgia: Occupational Disease and Third-Party Claims A disease that follows years of workplace exposure can support two different claims in Georgia: a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease, and a tort claim against the companies......
  6. Rental Car Accidents: Who Pays When You Crash a Rental? Someone hurt in a crash involving a rented car faces an owner that was not driving: the rental company, which a federal statute shields from claims based only on ownership,......
  7. Pothole and Road Defect Claims in Georgia A pothole claim in Georgia is a claim against a government, and the rules depend on which government answers for the road. A city street, a state highway, and a......
  8. Fireworks Injury Claims in Georgia Who answers for a fireworks injury in Georgia depends on who controlled the risk: the person who lit the device, the operator of a permitted public display, or the company......
  9. Gym and Fitness Center Injuries in Georgia Georgia's courts have held that a business can release itself from its own negligence but not from gross negligence or wilful misconduct, and the exact words of a release can......
  10. Bad Faith Insurance Denial Claims in Georgia Georgia law sets three different statutory penalties for an insurer's bad faith, each with its own claimant, its own trigger, and its own ceiling, and separate case law addresses an......
  11. Georgia Motorcycle Helmet Laws: Impact on Your Injury Claim Georgia requires every motorcycle operator and passenger to wear approved headgear. After a crash, the practical question is whether a missing or noncompliant helmet can be put in front of......
  12. Children’s Toy Injuries in Georgia: Choking Hazards, Toxins, and Product Liability A claim over a child's toy injury draws on two bodies of law: federal safety regulations that set design, materials, and battery requirements for children's products, and Georgia's product liability......
  13. Sports and Recreation Injury Claims in Georgia: When Assumption of Risk Has Limits A person hurt in a sport or recreational activity may face the defense that the person assumed the risk. Georgia decisions set a demanding test for that defense, separate it......
  14. Knee Injuries from Car Accidents: Dashboard Impact Claims in Georgia MedlinePlus names the dashboard directly. Among the ways the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is injured, it lists a very hard blow to the front of the knee, such as the......
  15. Nursing Home Neglect in Georgia: Bedsores, Malnutrition, and Accountability When a nursing home resident develops pressure sores or loses weight, the family's first question is what the facility was supposed to do. Federal rules for long term care facilities......
  16. Hospital Visitor Injury Claims in Georgia A visitor hurt in a hospital corridor, lobby, or parking area is not the patient, and Georgia law treats the visitor's claim as a premises claim rather than a claim......

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *