Federal Preemption and Aviation Product Liability

Sikkelee Brief in Opposition

Aviation accident litigation frequently requires confronting one of the most significant defenses asserted by aircraft manufacturers and other aviation defendants: federal preemption. Because aviation safety is regulated at the federal level, defendants often argue that federal law displaces or limits state-law product liability claims. Understanding, evaluating, and when necessary challenging those arguments is a central component of complex aviation litigation.

For decades, the firm has litigated federal preemption issues in aviation cases, including at the appellate level and before the Supreme Court of the United States. Preemption arguments are not abstract legal theory; they can determine whether injured parties and families are permitted to pursue accountability at all.

The Federal Aviation Regulatory Framework

Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Act to establish uniform national standards governing aviation safety. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) promulgates regulations addressing aircraft design, certification, maintenance, airworthiness, operational procedures, and continued operational safety.

Manufacturers obtain type certificates and supplemental type certificates through submission of engineering data and compliance demonstrations to the FAA. These certification processes form part of the regulatory backdrop in aviation product liability litigation. Defendants frequently contend that compliance with federal certification standards precludes additional duties under state tort law.

What Federal Preemption Means in Aviation Cases

Federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Courts generally analyze preemption under three categories:

• Express preemption, where Congress explicitly states that federal law displaces state law;
• Field preemption, where federal regulation is so pervasive that it occupies an entire regulatory field; and
• Conflict preemption, where compliance with both federal and state requirements would be impossible or where state law would obstruct federal objectives.

In aviation litigation, manufacturers most commonly invoke field and conflict preemption in response to claims alleging defective design, inadequate warnings, certification deficiencies, or failure to address known safety risks.

Preemption in Practice

Preemption defenses are frequently raised at the earliest stages of litigation. Motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment may assert that federal regulatory approval forecloses state-law claims. Courts evaluating these arguments must examine statutory language, regulatory scope, certification history, and applicable appellate precedent.

The analysis is fact-specific. Federal certification does not automatically insulate a manufacturer from accountability, nor does the existence of federal regulation eliminate traditional state-law remedies. Courts must determine whether the specific claim would impose requirements inconsistent with federal objectives or whether it operates within areas historically governed by state tort law.

These determinations often require careful examination of certification submissions, regulatory correspondence, engineering documentation, and the practical realities of aircraft design and testing.

Appellate Litigation and Preemption

Preemption questions in aviation cases have repeatedly reached federal appellate courts. The firm has litigated preemption issues through the federal courts of appeals and before the Supreme Court of the United States. These proceedings have addressed whether and to what extent federal aviation regulation displaces state-law product liability claims.

Appellate litigation in this area demands disciplined statutory interpretation, familiarity with regulatory history, and detailed analysis of how federal safety standards interact with traditional tort principles. The outcomes of such cases shape the framework within which subsequent aviation product liability claims are evaluated nationwide.

Interaction with the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA)

In addition to preemption doctrines, aviation product liability cases may implicate the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), which establishes an eighteen-year statute of repose for certain general aviation aircraft and component parts. GARA operates independently of preemption but frequently arises in parallel.

Evaluation of GARA defenses requires analysis of aircraft age, component replacement history, and statutory exceptions. In complex cases, courts must address both preemption and repose defenses before claims may proceed to discovery or trial.

Advocacy Within a Federal Framework

Aviation accident cases are often brought against highly sophisticated defendants, including major aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and government contractors. Preemption arguments are a central feature of that litigation landscape. Effective representation requires not only technical familiarity with federal aviation regulation, but also readiness to contest defenses that may restrict access to state-law remedies.

Preemption doctrine does not eliminate accountability by default. Courts must examine the specific claim, the regulatory scheme at issue, and the evidentiary record developed in the case. Where federal law does not clearly displace state-law duties, traditional product liability principles remain available.

For an overview of how aviation accident cases proceed within federal and state courts, including jurisdictional and evidentiary considerations, see the firm’s Aviation Accident Litigation page.

Katzman, Lampert & Stoll has litigated federal preemption issues at every level of the federal judiciary, including before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Submitted by:

• David Ian Katzman
• Bruce Lampert
• Brad Stoll