Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Vicarious Liability of Aircraft Owners and Lessors: A Chink in the Armor?
In 2005, the Superior Court of Rhode Island held that '44112 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code did not protect the owner and lessor of an aircraft from vicarious liability for negligence of a lessee of the aircraft. Coleman v. Windham Aviation Inc., No. CIV A K.C. 2004-0985, 2005 WL 1793907 (R.I. Super. July 18, 2005). This opinion is unsettling to aircraft owners, lessors, and secured parties who for many years have relied on a plain reading of '44112 to provide statutory protection from the imposition of vicarious liability. In light of the decision in Windham (and others discussed below), owners, lessors, of aircraft must be aware of the possibility that a state court may very well impose vicarious liability.
Because of the clear and unambiguous language of '44112 and its predecessors, including '1404 of the Federal Aviation Act, aircraft owners, lessors, and lenders have understandably done business in reliance on its clear protections:
(a) (1) 'lessor' means a person leasing for at least 30 days a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.
(2) 'owner' means a person that owns a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.
(3) 'secured party' means a person having a security interest in, or security title to, a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller under a conditional sales contract, equipment trust contract, chattel or corporate mortgage, or similar instrument.(b) Liability. A lessor, owner or secured party is liable for personal injury, death or property loss or damage on land or water only when a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller is in the actual possession or control of the lessor, owner or secured party, and the personal injury, death, or property loss or damage occurs because of ' (1) the aircraft, engine, or propeller; or (2) the flight of, or an object falling from, the aircraft, engine or propeller.
Notwithstanding this statutory protection against vicarious liability, which has existed in some form since 1948, the cases in this area are inconsistent at best
and generally give little comfort to the aviation community with regard to the
imposition of vicarious liability. The matter is complicated by the fact that many states still have laws most of which were adopted in the infancy of aviation, which provide that operators are strictly liable and owners are vicariously liable for damages caused by an aircraft. See, e.g., R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 1-4-3 (2006).
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.