The preoccupation of international airlines, aircraft manufacturers and injured passengers with the question whether liability suits can be framed in the United States is well known. Quite apart from the variety of doctrines that may be called in aid by plaintiffs to establish liability, and the procedural rules which assist “fishing expeditions”, there is of course the fundamental consideration that the levels of damages awarded by U.S. courts in death or personal injury cases are the highest in the world. This is true even when account is taken solely of compensatory damages— the court’s evaluation in monetary terms of the actual loss sustained. However, it seems increasingly to be the case that defendants in mass aviation disaster litigation are in addition compelled to face the spectre of punitive damages. The substance that this spectre may assume is well illustrated by the two following examples.

On June 25, 1968, a Beech Baron aircraft with a pilot and three passengers aboard was cleared to take off from Fullerton Airport in California at 1.22 p.m. As the aircraft gained momentum down the runway witnesses heard “erratic sounds” from one or both engines suggesting a partial power loss. The take-off was continued although the aircraft temporarily settled back on the runway after initial lift off. Just clearing the boundary fence the Baron then climbed slowly and commenced a shallow right turn. At approximately 700 feet of altitude the right wing dropped and the aircraft entered a spin from which it failed to recover. The ensuing impact with the ground destroyed the aircraft and killed its four occupants.

The Baron in question had been delivered new to its owner but a few days before the accident and was being flown to test its radio equipment installation. Expert testimony presented at the trial of an action against the Beech Aircraft Corporation brought by the aircraft owner and the estates of the deceased occupants alleged a design defect in the wing fuel tanks installed in the aircraft. It was asserted that the absence of adequate baffles within the main tanks had the effect that with a relatively low fuel content a wing-down manoeuvre could cause fuel to move within the tank, uncovering the port providing fuel to the engine and thereby precipitating temporary fuel starvation. It was further established in evidence that the manufacturers had themselves come to recognise the possibility of this condition occurring in certain flight manoeuvres not later than Mar. 19, 1968, when it was decided that operators of the Baron aircraft should be warned. No warning had, however, been received by the owner of the aircraft in question or its pilot prior to the fatal flight.

Beech strenuously argued at the trial that the facts of the case were not sufficient to justify submitting to the jury the question whether the proximate cause of the accident was indeed fuel starvation caused by the alleged defect in design. However, the jury decided that the causative link was proven and furthermore concluded on a preponderance of the evidence that Beech had been guilty of fraud in concealing a material matter of fact from the parties involved in the transaction to purchase the aircraft.