## Facts

- Turbines, Inc. performed maintenance/major service work on a Pratt & Whitney PT6 turbine engine used in a conversion of a Piper Brave agricultural aircraft from piston to turbine power.
- The conversion increased potential engine power beyond the airframe rating and relied on markings/instructions to prevent exceeding permissible power.
- Van Dardis, an FAA-certified mechanic and pilot involved with the conversion work, flew the converted aircraft on a post-installation flight.
- During takeoff and an attempted turnback, the aircraft crashed; Dardis testified the engine stopped before impact.
- Three experienced pilots observing from the ground testified the engine sound did not stop, suggesting a stall consistent with piloting/aerodynamic causes rather than engine failure.
- The plaintiffs asserted the crash was caused by an engine malfunction (including a possible bleed-valve malfunction) and alleged Turbines negligently failed to prevent it.
- At trial, the plaintiffs did not present expert testimony establishing the standard of care for aircraft-engine mechanics in the relevant circumstances or that Turbines breached that standard.
- A jury found for the plaintiffs on negligence, gross negligence, and strict products liability theories, and the trial court awarded substantial actual and exemplary damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported submitting strict products liability to the jury based on the engine work at issue.
2. Whether a res ipsa loquitur instruction was proper given alternative causes and lack of exclusive control.
3. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported negligence without expert testimony on the applicable standard of care and breach.
4. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported gross negligence and exemplary damages.
5. Whether admitting evidence regarding Turbines’ temporary surrender of its FAA repair station certificate was erroneous and prejudicial.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Turbines.
- The court held the strict-liability submission lacked evidence of a defect attributable to Turbines that existed when the engine left its control and caused the crash.
- The court held res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the crash had plausible non-negligent explanations and Turbines lacked exclusive control of the instrumentality at the time of the accident.
- The court held the negligence and gross-negligence findings were legally insufficient, emphasizing the absence of expert evidence establishing the relevant mechanic standard of care and breach.
- The court concluded exemplary damages could not stand because the record did not support even ordinary negligence.
- The court also found the FAA certificate-surrender evidence carried substantial unfair prejudice and lacked a sufficient tie to causation or the specific engine work at issue.

## Legal Principles

- In highly technical negligence claims (including specialized aircraft-engine maintenance), expert testimony is generally required to prove the applicable standard of care and that the defendant breached it.
- Res ipsa loquitur requires (1) an occurrence that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and (2) exclusive control by the defendant; it is unavailable where evidence supports equally plausible non-negligent causes or control was not exclusive.
- Strict products liability requires proof of a specific defect attributable to the defendant that rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, existed when it left the defendant’s control, and was a producing cause of the injury; speculation about a malfunction is insufficient.
- Where evidence is legally insufficient to prove ordinary negligence, gross negligence and exemplary damages necessarily fail.
- Evidence implying regulatory noncompliance may be excluded when its probative value is weak and its risk of unfair prejudice is high, particularly absent linkage to causation in the event at issue.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the plaintiffs’ verdict and rendered judgment for the defendant because the record lacked expert proof of any breach of a technical mechanic standard of care, res ipsa loquitur did not fit the control and causation facts, and the strict-liability theory rested on speculation rather than evidence of a defect attributable to the defendant.


Turbines, Inc. v. Dardis, 1 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999)