Abstract
General aviation—aviation involving both private and business aircraft—is a substantial and growing industry which comprises a fleet of 211,000 planes. The number of general aviation aircraft is expected to increase to 300,000 by 1991. Moreover, there are over 760,000 private pilots in the United States. Because of the varying sources of aviation liability law among the states, there is a lack of uniformity regarding whether the owner-lessor will be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the pilot. The lack of uniformity concerning owner-lessor liability in the aviation context is problematic because the owner is unable to predict what state his plane may pass over and, hence, what laws he may be subject to. There are no feasible boundary lines in the sky, and weather or other unexpected developments may cause a plane to be flown into a state the owner never intended it to enter. Because aviation liability laws vary from state to state, the aircraft owner must insure at a rate based on the harshest potential state law which could be applied if the plane had to enter the state because of unexpected developments. Accident victims desire adequate compensation, and society has an interest in providing adequate compensation for victims. Tort plaintiffs generally must prove fault to recover. When airplane owner-lessors are held vicariously liable, the tort plaintiff need not prove the owner was at fault. There must, however, be a rational basis for not requiring general aviation accident victims to prove owner-lessor fault. In the past, a pilot-lessee's negligence was imputed to the aircraft owner on the basis that aircraft were considered ultrahazardous; this is no longer true. The current justification for imputing negligence to the aircraft owner appears to be the deep pocket theory: the aircraft owner is in the best financial position to compensate the victim and is in the best financial position to purchase insurance covering the loss. The deep pocket theory is also the current basis for holding automobile owners vicariously liable. A complete analogy of aircraft to automobiles for purposes of imputing negligence, however, is unsupported by their comparative safety records. Efforts aimed at achieving uniformity have been unsuccessful even though at least thirty states have indicated in their aviation statutes a purpose to cooperate in effecting uniformity of laws among the several states. A possible solution to the lack of uniformity is a uniform enabling act. Unless a significant number of states adopt such an act, however, uniformity cannot be achieved. The federal government has expressed a strong interest in the development of the aviation transportation industry. This interest coupled with the fact that aviation is inherently interstate in nature, provides a sufficient basis for federal control even though tort law traditionally has been the province of the states. Under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to enact a comprehensive aviation tort liability statute covering major points of substantive law, standing provisions, and procedural rules. Furthermore, federal control would provide uniformity and certainty benefiting both the aircraft owner and accident victim.
First Page
93
Recommended Citation
Ann T. Hollyday,
Aviation Law: Owner-Lessor Liability—The Need for Uniformity,
36
Me. L. Rev.
93
(1984).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol36/iss1/4