Burroughs v. Precision Airmotive Corp.
California Court of Appeal
78 Cal. App. 4th 681, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 124 (2000)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
James and Jared Burroughs (plaintiffs) were injured in an aircraft crash that was caused by a defective carburetor float. The carburetor and its float had been manufactured and sold 27 years prior to the accident. During those 27 years, the product line containing the carburetor had been sold to different companies. At the time of the accident, the product line was owned by aircraft-part manufacturer Precision Airmotive Corporation (Precision) (defendant). Precision merely owned the product line and had never manufactured that particular carburetor. Precision had been aware of the potential issue with the carburetor’s float and had (1) issued mandatory-service bulletins stating that the floats must be replaced and (2) unsuccessfully attempted to get a federal airworthiness directive issued. The aircraft’s mechanic (defendant) testified that he paid attention only to federal airworthiness directives and had not even checked the float. The crash victims sued Precision and several others. Precision argued that the claims against it were barred by a federal statute of repose. The trial court applied the federal statute and dismissed the claims as time-barred. The crash victims appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bamattre-Manoukian, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.