## Facts

- Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. contracted with the United States Navy to develop and manufacture the S‑3 “Viking” jet.
- In the development process, Lockheed represented that the S‑3 would have two hydraulic systems and a backup manual system capable of operating the aileron servo, the component that connected the pilot’s control stick to the ailerons and enabled turning.
- Navy engineers and Lockheed personnel worked closely on aspects of the S‑3 program, and the Navy conducted design reviews and acceptance testing, but the Navy did not require Lockheed to design or manufacture the servo in any particular way.
- Lockheed subcontracted the servo’s design, manufacturing, and testing to another company.
- The servo’s design was defective, its manufacturing was inaccurate, and postmanufacturing testing procedures were flawed.
- On October 7, 1989, during takeoff climb from an aircraft carrier off the coast of Virginia, the pilot attempted to bank the S‑3.
- The hydraulic and manual systems intended to operate the servo failed, leaving the crew unable to stop the bank; the aircraft rolled out of control.
- The crew ejected before the crash, but the altitude was too low for parachutes to open fully; three crewmembers died on impact with the water and a fourth suffered serious injuries.
- The families of the deceased crewmembers sued Lockheed for wrongful-death and survival remedies under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) and general maritime law, asserting strict products liability and negligence based on the defective servo and testing.
- Lockheed asserted the military-contractor defense under Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., arguing it was immune because the Navy approved the relevant design.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Lockheed liable, rejected the Boyle defense, and awarded damages that included amounts for the decedents’ conscious pre-death pain and suffering; the court denied prejudgment interest.
- Lockheed appealed the liability and damages rulings, and plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether Lockheed was entitled to the Boyle military-contractor defense for alleged design defects in the S‑3’s aileron servo and related control systems.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Lockheed strictly liable and negligent under DOHSA and general maritime law for defects in the servo and for inadequate acceptance testing.
3. Whether damages could include compensation for the decedents’ conscious pre-death pain and suffering in a DOHSA/general maritime law action.
4. Whether the district court erred by denying prejudgment interest rather than applying the maritime presumption favoring such interest absent special circumstances.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on liability and damages in all respects except prejudgment interest.
- The court affirmed the rejection of the Boyle military-contractor defense because the Navy did not approve reasonably precise specifications for the particular servo design and testing choices alleged to be defective.
- The court affirmed the findings that Lockheed was liable under strict products liability and negligence theories grounded in DOHSA and general maritime law.
- The court affirmed the award of damages for the decedents’ conscious pre-death pain and suffering.
- The court remanded for the district court to reconsider prejudgment interest under maritime standards.

## Legal Principles

- The Boyle military-contractor defense applies only if the contractor proves: (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications, (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications, and (3) the supplier warned the United States about dangers known to the supplier but not to the government.
- Government participation in reviews or general acceptance of a system does not, by itself, satisfy Boyle’s “reasonably precise specifications” element; the government must make discretionary approval of the specific design feature alleged to be defective, rather than merely accept the contractor’s choices.
- In admiralty cases, prejudgment interest is generally favored as part of full compensation and should be denied only for special circumstances; a district court must explain a denial consistent with that presumption.
- DOHSA limits wrongful-death recovery to pecuniary losses suffered by beneficiaries, but general maritime law may allow survival-type recovery for the decedent’s own pre-death injuries, including conscious pain and suffering, when not displaced by DOHSA as applied by the court.
- Following a bench trial, an appellate court reviews factual findings for clear error and reviews legal conclusions de novo; mixed questions are reviewed according to their dominant legal or factual character.

## Conclusion

Gray held Lockheed liable under DOHSA and general maritime law for a defective aileron servo and inadequate testing that caused an S‑3 Viking to roll out of control after takeoff, killing three crewmembers after ejection; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the rejection of Boyle’s military-contractor defense and affirmed damages including pre-death pain and suffering, but remanded for reconsideration of prejudgment interest under maritime standards.


Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., 125 F.3d 1371 (1997)