Aviation Accident Litigation

Aircraft Crash Representation

Aviation accident litigation operates within a highly regulated federal framework and frequently involves complex technical, engineering, and procedural issues. This practice focuses on civil litigation arising from aircraft accidents and airplane crashes involving commercial airlines, corporate operators, charter services, manufacturers, maintenance providers, and component suppliers. As aviation accident attorneys, our firm represents families and individuals affected by catastrophic aircraft crashes, including wrongful death and severe injury cases. Effective representation requires familiarity with federal aviation regulations, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigative procedures, international treaty frameworks, and the technical disciplines underlying aircraft design and operation.

Federal Aviation Litigation Practice Overview

Aviation accident cases differ materially from ordinary personal injury matters. They often involve multiple parties, layered regulatory oversight, parallel government investigations, and substantial engineering analysis. Litigation frequently proceeds in federal district court and, in appropriate matters, through coordinated multidistrict litigation depending on jurisdictional and factual considerations.

Our practice addresses aviation matters nationwide, including commercial transport accidents, general aviation incidents, helicopter operations, corporate jet accidents, charter operations, and aircraft product liability claims. Many cases require coordinated investigation, technical reconstruction, and regulatory evaluation at an early stage.

The Federal Aviation Regulatory Framework

Civil aviation in the United States is governed by a comprehensive federal statutory and regulatory system. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq.), as amended, authorizes minimum design, certification, and operational standards for aircraft and aviation products. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administers this framework through certification procedures, airworthiness standards, maintenance requirements, operational regulations, and manufacturing approvals.

In aircraft accident litigation, these federal standards frequently inform the analytical framework. Questions may arise concerning certification compliance, design approval, adherence to Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), maintenance practices, and the scope of manufacturer and operator duties. Because federal regulations establish minimum standards, courts evaluate how those standards interact with state negligence and aviation product liability principles.

• Type certification and supplemental type certificates
• Airworthiness directives and service bulletins
• Design testing and approval documentation
• Maintenance and overhaul records
• Operational compliance procedures

Aviation Product Liability and Negligence Claims

Aviation accident cases may involve multiple legal theories depending on the circumstances of the event. Product liability claims arise where an aircraft or component is alleged to have been defectively designed or manufactured. In jurisdictions recognizing strict liability, a manufacturer may be responsible for harm caused by a defective product without proof of negligence.

Negligence claims require analysis of duty, breach, causation, and damages. In aviation contexts, alleged breaches may involve operational decision-making, maintenance practices, inspection protocols, training standards, or engineering design processes.

Because aviation regulation is federal while tort law is primarily state-based, courts frequently examine the interaction between federal certification standards and state-law duties in aircraft accident and aviation wrongful death cases.

Federal Preemption in Aviation Product Liability

Federal preemption is a doctrine under which federal law may displace certain state-law standards or remedies. In aviation product liability litigation, preemption arguments arise because aircraft and components are subject to federal certification and continuing airworthiness regulation.

Preemption analysis may involve express preemption, implied or “field” preemption, and conflict preemption, including assertions that compliance with both federal requirements and state-law duties would be impossible. The Federal Aviation Act preserves certain state-law remedies, and Congress enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), establishing an 18-year statute of repose for specified general aviation claims.

Preemption defenses can materially shape aircraft accident litigation, particularly at the motion-to-dismiss and summary judgment stages. Members of the firm have litigated aviation preemption issues in federal appellate courts, including proceedings before the United States Supreme Court addressing statutory interpretation and the scope of aviation preemption doctrine.

International Aviation Treaties

Claims arising from international air travel may be governed by multilateral treaties, including the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999. These treaties establish uniform rules governing international carriage by air.

Under the Montreal Convention, airlines may be strictly liable for proven damages up to specified thresholds, with additional liability determined according to treaty standards. These frameworks require evaluation of treaty applicability, jurisdictional provisions, and burden allocation in international airplane crash litigation.

The NTSB Investigation Process and Civil Litigation

Following a significant aviation accident, the National Transportation Safety Board conducts an independent safety investigation to determine probable cause and issue safety recommendations. Its function is preventive rather than adjudicative.

Civil litigation proceeds separately from the NTSB investigation. Federal law restricts admission of the NTSB’s probable cause determinations in civil court, although factual materials developed during the investigation may be considered where permitted. The interaction between NTSB procedures and civil discovery requires careful attention to evidence preservation and statutory limitations.

Further discussion of aviation accident analysis and investigative procedures is available in the firm’s Aviation Insights section and its explanation of the NTSB investigation process.

Technical Evidence and In-House Aviation Investigation

Aviation accident litigation is evidence-driven and technical. Sources may include Flight Data Recorder (FDR) information, Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) recordings, radar and ADS-B data, wreckage examination, metallurgical analysis, human factors evaluation, and systems engineering assessment.

The firm maintains in-house investigative capability as a central component of its aviation practice. The senior partners are certificated pilots, and firm-owned aircraft support direct site access, operational replication of approach paths, and airport environment evaluation where appropriate. In prior Boeing 737 litigation involving United 585 and USAir 427, the firm conducted component-level examination of a rudder power control unit and developed a test apparatus to evaluate hydraulic performance as part of its technical analysis.

This investigative methodology integrates piloting experience, engineering evaluation, instrumentation, and reconstruction within the broader framework of regulatory and procedural analysis.

Wrongful Death and Survival Claims

When an aviation accident results in loss of life, claims arise under state wrongful death statutes, which define eligible beneficiaries and categories of recoverable damages. Many jurisdictions also recognize survival actions preserving causes of action belonging to the decedent prior to death, with recovery directed to the estate.

Because these statutes vary across jurisdictions, forum selection, choice-of-law analysis, and conflict-of-laws considerations may materially affect the scope of available remedies in aviation wrongful death and aircraft crash cases.

Jurisdiction and National Federal Court Practice

Aviation accident cases frequently implicate federal jurisdiction, including diversity jurisdiction, federal regulatory issues, and treaty-based claims. Certain matters proceed in multidistrict litigation when multiple actions arise from a single incident.

Evaluation of forum selection may consider accident location, residence of parties, and principal place of business of manufacturers or operators. The firm provides national aircraft accident representation and has litigated aviation accident cases across federal district and appellate courts, including coordinated proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions About Aviation Accident Litigation

What makes aviation accident litigation different from other injury cases?

Aviation accident cases involve a federally regulated industry, complex engineering systems, and parallel safety investigations conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board. Litigation frequently requires coordinated technical reconstruction, regulatory analysis, and multi-party procedural management.

Are aviation accident cases handled in federal court?

Many aviation accident and aircraft crash cases proceed in federal court due to diversity jurisdiction, federal regulatory issues, or treaty-based claims. Certain matters may also be coordinated through multidistrict litigation when multiple cases arise from a single event.

Can families bring wrongful death claims after an airplane crash?

Yes. When an aviation accident results in loss of life, wrongful death and survival claims may be pursued under applicable state law. The governing statute and scope of recoverable damages depend on jurisdiction and choice-of-law analysis.

Does the NTSB determine civil liability?

No. The National Transportation Safety Board conducts independent safety investigations focused on determining probable cause and issuing safety recommendations. Civil liability is determined separately through litigation in court.

Do federal aviation regulations prevent product liability claims?

Federal aviation regulations establish certification and operational standards, but courts evaluate how those standards interact with state product liability and negligence principles. Questions involving federal preemption are addressed through statutory and appellate analysis.

Professional Commitment to Aviation Law

Aviation accident litigation requires sustained engagement with federal regulatory systems, complex technical evidence, and national aviation litigation practice. The firm represents families and individuals in aircraft accident and aviation wrongful death cases throughout the United States. Our practice reflects federal aviation literacy, technical evaluation, and disciplined litigation strategy. Attorney profiles detailing aviation experience and qualifications are available within the firm’s biography section, Our Team.