## Facts

- United Airlines Flight 232, a DC-10 traveling from Denver to Chicago, lost hydraulic power and crashed during an attempted emergency landing at Sioux City, Iowa, on July 19, 1989, killing 112 of 296 people aboard.
- Plaintiffs (injured passengers and representatives of decedents) filed wrongful death and personal injury actions in multiple federal courts.
- The actions were centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings as a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Defendants included United Airlines (owner/operator), McDonnell Douglas (aircraft designer/manufacturer), and General Electric (engine designer/manufacturer).
- Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss all punitive damages claims; alternatively, they sought an early ruling identifying which state’s law governed punitive damages for each defendant across the transferred cases.

## Issues

1. Whether punitive damages claims arising from a commercial aviation disaster are barred by substantive due process.
2. Whether the Federal Aviation Act and related federal regulation preempt state-law punitive damages claims in this context.
3. If punitive damages are available, which state’s law governs punitive damages for each defendant in the consolidated MDL actions.

## Decision

- The court denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motions seeking dismissal of punitive damages claims.
- The court held punitive damages are not categorically prohibited by the Due Process Clause.
- The court held punitive damages claims were not preempted by federal aviation regulation.
- On defendants’ alternative request, the court made an early punitive-damages choice-of-law determination:
  - Illinois law governs punitive damages claims against United Airlines.
  - California law governs punitive damages claims against McDonnell Douglas.
  - Ohio law governs punitive damages claims against General Electric.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages are not unconstitutional per se; due process concerns are addressed through ordinary procedural protections and post-verdict judicial review rather than a categorical bar.
- Federal aviation safety regulation does not, without clear congressional action, displace state tort remedies, including punitive damages.
- In multistate mass-tort litigation, punitive-damages choice-of-law may be resolved defendant-by-defendant by focusing on the states with the strongest interests in regulating and deterring the challenged corporate conduct (including where key conduct occurred and where the defendant’s operations are centered).
- In transferred MDL proceedings, early resolution of punitive-damages choice-of-law questions may be appropriate to reduce uncertainty and assist settlement and coordinated pretrial management.

## Conclusion

The court allowed punitive damages claims to proceed, rejected broad due process and federal preemption attacks, and applied different states’ punitive-damages law to each defendant based on the state with the most significant interest in regulating the relevant conduct.


In re Air Crash Disaster at Sioux City, Iowa, 734 F. Supp. 1425 (N.D. Ill. 1990)