## Facts

- A two-seat aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff in 1995, seriously injuring the pilot, James Burroughs, and passenger, Jared Burroughs; Jared’s father, Joseph Burroughs, witnessed the crash.
- Plaintiffs attributed the crash to engine power loss caused by a defective carburetor float made of composite material that allegedly absorbed fuel over time and became too heavy to function properly.
- The carburetor and composite float at issue were manufactured and first sold in 1968.
- Precision Airmotive later acquired the carburetor product line through successors but did not manufacture or sell the specific carburetor involved in the crash.
- After acquiring the line, Precision issued mandatory service bulletins directing replacement of composite floats and unsuccessfully sought an FAA airworthiness directive to compel broader compliance.
- The aircraft’s mechanic testified he generally followed FAA airworthiness directives and had not acted on the service bulletins.
- Plaintiffs sued Precision on negligence, strict liability, and failure-to-warn theories; Precision obtained summary judgment based on the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA).

## Issues

1. Whether a successor that acquires an aircraft component product line qualifies as a “manufacturer” protected by GARA’s 18-year statute of repose.
2. Whether plaintiffs may avoid GARA by alleging an independent, ongoing post-sale duty to warn based on the successor’s later conduct (e.g., service bulletins and FAA communications).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Precision.
- The court held Precision qualified as a “manufacturer” for GARA purposes as a successor to the product line and thus could invoke GARA’s repose protection.
- The court held plaintiffs’ post-sale failure-to-warn theory was not independent of Precision’s manufacturer role because the complained-of conduct involved duties imposed on manufacturers under federal law.
- Because the component was first sold in 1968 and the accident occurred more than 18 years later, GARA barred the claims, and no exception applied.

## Legal Principles

- Under GARA, claims arising from an accident involving a general aviation aircraft are barred when brought more than 18 years after first delivery of the aircraft or first sale of the relevant component, against a manufacturer acting in its capacity as a manufacturer.
- A successor that acquires a general aviation component product line may be treated as the “manufacturer” for GARA and may claim the statute’s protection.
- Post-sale warnings, service bulletins, and FAA-related communications undertaken pursuant to manufacturer obligations are actions taken “in [the] capacity as a manufacturer” and fall within GARA’s bar when the repose period has run.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid GARA by recharacterizing manufacturer-linked warning and reporting duties as independent tort obligations.

## Conclusion

The court held that GARA’s 18-year statute of repose barred claims against a successor aircraft-component manufacturer and that alleged post-sale failures to warn, when rooted in manufacturer duties under federal law, remain subject to GARA’s protections.


Burroughs v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 78 Cal. App. 4th 681, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)