Caldwell

Caldwell v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp.

Good Law
230 F.3d 1155·2000 WL 1610343
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 30, 2000No. 99-15746California1,810 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Grajber, J.

In this case, we are asked to decide whether a revised flight manual is a new “system ... or other part” of a helicopter within the meaning of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 1 (“GARA”). Our answer is “yes.” Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Because the district court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we take all allegations of material fact as true and construe the com *1156 plaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., 992 F.2d 932, 934 (9th Cir.1993).

On January 12, 1997, helicopter pilot Brian Caldwell took Seiichi Hanami and another passenger on a sightseeing tour of Saipan, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Caldwell planned the trip unaware that the last two gallons of gasoline in the helicopter’s fuel tanks could not be used. The helicopter was within 10 minutes of its destination when it ran out of usable fuel. Caldwell attempted a landing, but the main rotor blade struck the. tail boom, causing the helicopter to crash. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.