## Facts

- Northwest Airlines Flight 255, an MD-80 aircraft, crashed during takeoff from Detroit Metropolitan Airport on August 16, 1987, killing 156 people.
- Trial evidence indicated the flight crew failed to properly set wing flaps and slats necessary for lift; the aircraft failed to gain expected altitude and struck nearby structures shortly after takeoff.
- Approximately 160 wrongful-death and personal-injury actions were filed against Northwest Airlines (operator) and McDonnell Douglas (manufacturer) and consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The district court used coordinated pretrial orders, including a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and a structured discovery schedule focused on common liability issues.
- A jury found Northwest 100% liable for the crash-related losses and found McDonnell Douglas not liable.
- McDonnell Douglas had settled some plaintiffs’ claims before trial; after the verdict, the district court allowed McDonnell Douglas to recover those settlement amounts from Northwest under equitable subrogation.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion through evidentiary and trial-management rulings that Northwest argued improperly limited its ability to attribute fault to alleged aircraft or component defects and to McDonnell Douglas.
2. Whether McDonnell Douglas, after settling some claims and being exonerated at trial, could recover its settlement payments from Northwest through equitable subrogation.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment allocating 100% liability to Northwest and 0% to McDonnell Douglas.
- The court held the challenged evidentiary exclusions and trial-management decisions fell within the district court’s discretion and did not warrant reversal.
- The court affirmed the equitable subrogation award, allowing McDonnell Douglas to recover from Northwest amounts paid in settlements of crash-related claims.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings and trial management in complex litigation is deferential; exclusion of collateral or weakly connected evidence may be upheld where risks of confusion or speculation outweigh probative value.
- A jury’s allocation of fault will be sustained where supported by sufficient evidence, even when alternative causation theories are advanced.
- Equitable subrogation permits a party who paid amounts attributable to a loss for which another is primarily responsible to seek reimbursement from the primarily liable party.
- When a settling defendant is later found not liable, equitable subrogation may be used to prevent unjust enrichment of the party adjudged solely responsible, consistent with the policy favoring settlement.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld both the verdict placing sole responsibility on the airline and the post-verdict equitable subrogation judgment requiring the airline to reimburse the manufacturer for settlement payments made on claims arising from the crash.


In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 1996)