United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 174 F. App'x 833 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 5, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50568
UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., Manager, United
States Aircraft Insurance Group, Inc., a New York Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Etc., ET AL.,
Defendants,
RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY, a Kansas Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. 1:03-CV-26-LY)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
1
PER CURIAM:*
The summary judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following
reasons:
1. There is no evidence that Raytheon as a reseller altered or modified the
plane before reselling it in 1999. Under Oklahoma law, no strict
liability is obtained. Allenberg v. Bentley Hedges Travel Serv., Inc.,
22 P.3d 223, 230 (Okla. 2001).
2. As for the wiring criticized by the FAA in 1991, that was how the
plane was manufactured in 1976. While Raytheon is the corporate
successor of Beech Aircraft, which manufactured the plane, this
liability is barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act’s
eighteen-year statute of repose. 49 U.S.C. § 40101.
3. Assuming the inverter select relay was made by Beech and installed in
1990, there is no evidence it was defective. The argument over Dr.
Rhoten’s testimony is misplaced. Indeed, there was a fact issue on the
recovery of the relay and, in any event, his testimony was certainly
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
admissible. But all he said was that he thought the inverter select relay
failed. He said that he did not know why or how it failed and that he
had no knowledge as to whether it was defective when it was
manufactured. Ahrens v. Ford Motor Co., 340 F.3d 1142, 1145 (10th
Cir. 2003) (applying Oklahoma law).
4. The claim that Raytheon failed to warn the buyer of the plane of the
1991 FAA statement about the bus wiring fails because this
information was known by the plane’s pilot. Duane v. Okla. Gas &
Elec. Co., 833 P.2d 284, 287 (Okla. 1992) (“Where the danger or
potentiality of danger is known or should be known to the user, the
duty to warn does not attach.”). Furthermore, the change
recommended by the FAA would not have saved this plane where both
buses failed. Gaines-Tabb v. ICI Explosives, USA, Inc., 160 F.3d 613,
620 (10th Cir. 1998) (applying Oklahoma law) (recognizing lack of
proximate cause where the causal nexus is broken).
AFFIRMED.
3