CASE LAW TITLE: FLUOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.

JEPPESEN & COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent July 23, 1985

1.0

CASE SUMMARY (Fluor Corp. v. Jeppesen & Co., 170 Cal. App. 3d 468 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1985) Plaintiff, Fluor Corporation had appealed from California Court of Appeals due to the previous judgement in California Trial Court entered in favour of defendant Jeppesen & Company contending the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to instruct the jury upon issues of strict products liability with respect to the Adirondack Airport Approach Chart produced and sold by the defendant, Jeppesen & Company.

The litigation stemmed from the crash of a Lockheed L-1329 Jet Star belongs to Flour Corporation in the Lake Saranac, New York on a snowy night in December 1972. While flying at an altitude of approximately 2,140 feet mean sea level (MSL), this plane struck the side of Johnson Hill, located some one and three-quarters miles from Adirondack Airport as its pilot apparently was manoeuvring preparatory to attempting a landing. All the occupants were killed and the plane itself was destroyed. Johnson Hill was not designated on the Adirondack Airport instrument-approach chart designed, produced and disseminated by respondent, even though it represented the highest point in the crash area with an elevation of 2,257 feet MSL. Instead a hill with an elevation of only 1,991 feet MSL (Hill 1991), located just 2,400 feet to the southeast of Johnson Hill, was shown.

The appellant filed suit against respondent, asserting theories of breach of warranty, negligence and strict products liability. With respect to the latter appellant alleged that the instrument-approach chart for Adirondack Airport was "defective in its design or construction and contained erroneous and misleading information," which defect proximately caused the loss of appellant's plane. By contrast, it was respondent's theory that the accident resulted from the crew's negligence in descending below federally prescribed minimum altitudes in their attempt to land during adverse weather conditions.

The result of the judgement of the law suit was; the trial court had refused to give the jury a strict liability instruction because the chart is not a product. This is because, during that time of lawsuit in California Trial Court, no California court has yet decided whether charts of the type manufactured by respondent may be deemed to constitute "products" for purposes of determining the applicability of strict liability principles. Therefore, the plaintiff had appealed to the California Court of Appeals, as to reverse the previous judgement which in favour of the defendant.

2.0

RESULT

The plaintiff successfully proved that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the theory of strict liability with respect to the navigational charts made and sold by Jeppesen (Saulen, 2010). The plaintiff argued that Jeppesens failure to account for a hill, which was the highest point in the surrounding area, while showing a smaller hill on its chart, could be a design defect and sustain a cause of action. This is possible because after the trial in the instant case had been concluded, there have been two law suits filed by two different districts of the United States Courts of Appeal which the decisions have expressly classified Jeppersens aeronautical charts as products which liable under strict liability. The cases were Brocklesby v. United States and Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co. (Brocklesby v. United States (9th Cir.1985) 753 F.2d 794, 800; Saloomey v.Jeppesen & Co. (2d Cir.1983) 707 F.2d 671, 676-677)

The California Court of Appeals held that the navigational approach chart was a product and not a service, and the lower courts refusal to instruct on the theory of strict liability was a reversible error. Jeppesen had to bear the costs of accidents that were proximately caused by defects in the charts. A petition for a rehearing was denied August 22, 1985, and respondent's petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied October 17, 1985.

3.0

THE LAW APPLIED Reinstatement (Second) of Torts 402A (1965) provides: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if; (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. (Source: Saulen, 2010)

4.0

CASE ANALYSIS This case is strongly related to strict product liability. In the first place, the appellant lost the law suit in the trial court because aeronautical charts manufactured was not decided as a product in any California court at that time. However, the latter law suits; Brocklesby v. United States and Saloomey v. Jeppesen & Co. had clearly clarified this type of chart is a product and therefore it is liable.

In my opinion, I also believed that Jeppesen Corporation is at fault and responsible for the airline crash due to their defected aeronautical charts. Furthermore, under the Restatement (Third), a product is defined as tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption. Therefore maps, navigational and aeronautical charts are considered tangible personal property that fall under the Restatement. Jeppersen is definitely liable under the strict product liability. The deceased pilot must had totally relied upon the chart as to make an emergency land during an adverse weather situation. By publishing and selling the charts; Jeppesen undertook a special responsibility as a seller to insure that consumers will not be injured by the use of the charts (Zoellers et al, 2005). Due to the missing information of Johnson Hill, the plane crashed and killed all occupants which of course, a serious matter as it involved fatal accident rather than accidental injuries.

Although Jeppesen defended by saying that they acquired a precise geographical data from United States Government ( Federal Administrative Agencies, FAA) and the charts were based from it; the charts manufacturer must use due care to ensure the chart accurately depicts the real condition because Jeppesen sold and gained profits from it whereas government data are not for sale. Jeppesen actually converted government data from text into graphic information. Indeed, Jeppesens charts are distinct products. As a manufacturer and marketer of those products Jeppesen must take all precautions to ensure the charts will not harm their customers because they should know all pilots at those times totally relied upon aeronautical charts as to manoeuvre the planes directions. In this case, Jeppesen did not make any extra efforts to survey the locations and totally relied upon the government data to gain profits.

Jeppesen also argued that the pilot was accounted for negligence as he decided to land the plane below federally prescribed minimum altitudes. Nonetheless, it cannot be said as a matter of law that it was unforeseeable a pilot might still engage in such conduct in an attempt to effect a night time landing during adverse weather conditions at an airport which had nonprecision approaches and no control tower, as was the case at Adirondack Airport (Heafey and Kennedy, 1994).

In conclusion, it is inarguable that aeronautical charts manufacturers or any devices that resembled to GPS system have a duty to exercise reasonable care and verify that most of the displayed geographic information is accurate (Saulen, 2010). However, the courts should also take special note as to clearly define the term product as to give fair juridiction.

REFERENCES

Brocklesby v. United States (9th Cir.1985) 753 F.2d 794, 800.

Fluor Corp. v. Jeppesen & Co., 170 Cal. App. 3d 468 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1985.

Frances E. Zollers, Andrew McMullin, Sandra N. Hurd and Peter Shears, No More Soft Landings for Software: Liability for Defects In An Industry That Has Come of Age (2005). SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J.[Vol. 21]. Martin J. Saulen, The Machine Knows!: What Legal Implications Arise for GPS Device Manufacturers When Drivers Following Their GPS Device Instructions Cause An Accident? (2010). NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44:159].

Saloomey v.Jeppesen & Co. (2d Cir.1983) 707 F.2d 671, 676-677)

The Center for Spatial Law and Policy. http://www.spatiallaw.com/spatial_law_cases.php Richard J. Heafey, Don M. Kennedy, Product Liability: Winning Strategies and Techniques (1994). Law Journal Press.