Saloomey v. Jeppesen

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Torts

Tortswrongful deathproducts liabilitychoice of lawaviation accidentsnegligenceproximate causeRestatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145

Facts

Pilot Willard Wahlund, flying his own aircraft with Jeppesen charts on board, diverted toward Martinsburg, West Virginia, even though he lacked an approach plate for that airport. Jeppesen’s Washington area chart incorrectly labeled Martinsburg with "ILS," even though the airport had only a localizer and no glidescope component of a full instrument landing system. Wahlund repeatedly requested an ILS approach, was never specifically told that no glidescope was available, and later crashed near the final approach fix, killing himself and two passengers. The estates sued Jeppesen on negligence, warranty, and strict products liability theories, and the jury found Jeppesen liable on all theories.

Issue

Whether Connecticut choice-of-law principles required application of West Virginia law or instead the Restatement (Second) most significant relationship approach leading to Colorado law in this aviation wrongful-death action. Whether Jeppesen’s mass-produced navigational charts were products for strict liability purposes, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that Jeppesen’s defective chart and negligence proximately caused the crash.

Rule

For aviation wrongful-death cases, where the place of injury may be fortuitous, Connecticut would use the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 most significant relationship test rather than mechanically applying lex loci delicti. Under that approach, the governing law is the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, considering the place of injury, place of conduct causing injury, the parties’ domiciles and places of business, and where their relationship is centered. Mass-produced navigational charts sold without individual tailoring may be treated as products under strict products liability. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted only when reasonable people could reach but one conclusion in favor of the movant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Northridge Aero Charts, a company incorporated and headquartered in Colorado, mass-produces airport approach manuals and sells them from Denver to a regional carrier. A Connecticut resident borrows one of the manuals during a private flight from New Jersey to Vermont, diverts during bad weather, and crashes in rural Pennsylvania after relying on an allegedly erroneous runway-equipment notation.

If a Connecticut court follows the majority approach from this case, which state's law is most likely to govern the claims against Northridge Aero Charts?

Explanation. In interstate aviation wrongful-death cases, the majority predicted that Connecticut would not mechanically apply lex loci delicti, because the place of injury is often fortuitous. Instead, Connecticut would use the Restatement (Second) § 145 most significant relationship test, considering place of injury, place of conduct, domiciles and business locations, and where the parties' relationship is centered. Where the defendant is incorporated and based in Colorado and sold the mass-produced charts there, Colorado is the strongest contact, while the Pennsylvania crash site is merely happenstance. (Derived from Saloomey v. Jeppesen (n.d.).)