A software issue is suggested to have played a role in the two horrific crashes involving the new Boeing 737 MAX. With this in mind, what potential theories of civil liability could Boeing be subject to by passengers and airlines that have suffered significant losses as a result of what appears to be a design flaw in this software? Further, what theories allow for criminal liability?
The Department of Transportation (DOT) recently denied three petitions to initiate rulemakings on various consumer protection issues proposed by FlyersRights, a consumer advocacy group. The DOT's decision to refuse to propose new regulations is consistent with the Trump administration's efforts to reduce regulatory burdens on industry. Nonetheless, the DOT appeared to be sympathetic to consumer protection concerns raised by FlyersRights.
A recent decision from the Central District of California in Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v Hollycal Production, Inc is somewhat groundbreaking in its significance, primarily because it is the first to address in a precedential context the long-held assumption that drones are, in fact, aircraft.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is modernising its enforcement tools with the use of camera-equipped drones. OSHA requires each of the agency's 10 regions to designate a staff member as an unmanned aircraft programme manager to oversee training requirements and evaluate reports submitted by drone teams. It further requires that drone crews follow Federal Aviation Administration requirements.
In an interesting decision that may have significant repercussions for air carriers, a San Francisco federal judge recently dismissed a putative class action brought against Air France based on a limitations provision set out in Air France's General Conditions of Carriage and the pre-emption provisions of the Airline Deregulation Act.