Florida Supreme Court Deepens Split Of Authority On Meaning Of Federal Limitation Of Liability For Aircraft Owners And Lessors

In a recent dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized Congress for writing "fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation." Although Justice Scalia was referring to the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, he could easily have been talking about the "Limitation of Liability" provision in the federal aviation statute, 49 U.S.C. § 44112.

Section 44112 provides that an aircraft owner or lessor is liable "for personal injury, death, or property loss or damage on land or water" only when the aircraft that caused the injury "is in the actual possession or control" of the owner or lessor. In Vreeland v. Ferrer, No. SC10-694 (Fla. July 8, 2011), the Florida Supreme Court interpreted the scope of the limitation of liability and held that it only encompasses injuries, death, or property damages occurring on land or water. Disagreeing with the intermediate appellate court in the same case and with prior decisions of other courts, the court in Vreeland held that Section 44112 does not provide immunity for an injury or death occurring in the air, as opposed to on the ground. The court thus deepened a split of authority on one of many "fuzzy" aspects of the federal limitation of liability for aircraft owners and lessors.

In the Florida case, John Vreeland, as administrator of the estate of Jose Martinez, brought suit against, among others, Aerolease of America, Inc., the owner of an aircraft in which Martinez was a passenger when it crashed, killing Martinez and the pilot. Vreeland asserted a number of claims against Aerolease, including that it was vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the pilot in the operation of the aircraft, under Florida's "dangerous instrumentality" doctrine.

Aerolease sought summary judgment, arguing that Section 44112 preempted Florida law and precluded a Florida court from imposing liability on Aerolease for harm occurring when it was not in actual possession or control of the aircraft. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment for Aerolease. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court then granted Vreeland's petition for review and reversed.

In its opinion, the Florida Supreme Court noted that it had initially adopted the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in a 1920 case involving automobiles. Fifty years later, the court held in Orefice v. Albert, 237 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1970), that the owner of an aircraft could be held...