## Facts

- Jetcraft Corporation (Jetcraft) owned a Cessna 650 business jet used on a training flight.
- Wesley Kimball, a FlightSafety International, Inc. (FlightSafety) instructor, served as pilot in command during the flight.
- The jet was damaged in an accident in which the landing gear collapsed during landing.
- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated the accident.
- The NTSB noted that a landing-gear indicator light had shown a problem a few days before the accident and that testing suggested possible issues with the landing-gear assembly.
- The NTSB could not confirm that a mechanical malfunction actually occurred at the time of the accident.
- After the accident, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) held an informal postaccident conference.
- The FAA determined Kimball violated an instructor-qualification regulation because he had not properly recorded certain qualifying activities.
- Based on that recordkeeping/qualification violation, the FAA suspended Kimball’s pilot certificate for 60 days and fined FlightSafety.
- Jetcraft sued Kimball and FlightSafety, alleging the landing-gear collapse was caused by Kimball’s improper operation of the gear rather than a mechanical failure.
- Jetcraft moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) collateral estoppel based on the FAA action, or alternatively (2) negligence per se based on Federal Aviation Regulations, and (3) res ipsa loquitur based on the nature of the accident.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAA’s informal enforcement determination and sanctions for a recordkeeping/qualification violation collaterally estopped Kimball and FlightSafety from disputing negligence or causation in Jetcraft’s civil action.
2. Whether alleged violations of Federal Aviation Regulations (including pilot-in-command responsibility rules and instructor-qualification/recordkeeping rules) established negligence per se as a matter of law for the aircraft damage.
3. Whether res ipsa loquitur entitled Jetcraft to summary judgment where the landing gear collapsed, but the record contained evidence supporting a possible mechanical explanation.

## Decision

- The court denied Jetcraft’s motion for summary judgment.
- The FAA’s informal enforcement action did not have preclusive effect on the civil negligence and causation questions because the FAA proceeding addressed a recordkeeping/qualification violation and did not actually decide whether Kimball’s operation caused the accident.
- The cited regulatory violations did not establish negligence per se as a matter of law on this record because material disputes remained about causation and about whether any violation was sufficiently tied to the landing-gear collapse.
- Res ipsa loquitur did not justify summary judgment because the evidence permitted non-negligent explanations, including potential mechanical problems with the landing-gear system, leaving the cause of the collapse for the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- Issue preclusion from an administrative proceeding requires that the same issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided in a final determination after a fair opportunity to contest it; an informal FAA enforcement disposition for recordkeeping/qualification does not decide civil tort negligence or crash causation.
- Negligence per se requires a close fit between the purpose of the regulation and the type of harm alleged, and it does not eliminate the need to prove causation; where the cause of the accident is disputed and the enforced rule concerns qualification/records, liability cannot be established as a matter of law.
- Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence only when the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence and the circumstances support attributing the likely cause to the defendant; it generally will not support summary judgment when the record supports competing explanations such as mechanical failure.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to treat the FAA’s recordkeeping/qualification sanctions as a binding determination of operational fault and concluded that neither alleged regulatory violations nor res ipsa loquitur resolved disputed questions about what caused the landing-gear collapse; because negligence and causation remained fact questions, Jetcraft was not entitled to summary judgment.


Jetcraft Corp. v. Flightsafety International, 781 F. Supp. 687 (1991)