ABSTRACT
Aviation sits at a juncture where engineering prowess meets institutional fragility. Keeping airliners aloft demands meticulous integration of hardware, software and regulatory oversight, yet the pressure to minimise costs can allow subtle design flaws to slip through. The Boeing 737 MAX tragedies revealed how a software patch designed to compensate for aerodynamic shortcomings instead triggered two crashes, killing over six hundred people and raising fundamental questions about accountability in a global industry. While international treaties cap airline liability, manufacturers remain exposed to product-liability suits, which serve as both a deterrent and a means of compensating victims. Drawing on comparative cases from the United States & other jurisdictions, this paper examines whether current doctrines – strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty – adequately deter unsafe design. It analyses the impact of defences like the government-contractor doctrine, statutes of repose and economic-loss rules, and explores how federal pre-emption intersects with state law. By juxtaposing Cold War military aircraft litigation with the modern complexities of automated flight control systems, the paper traces a pattern of judicial reasoning that alternates between deference to industry and protection of consumer safety. The central argument is that achieving meaningful deterrence and restorative justice requires expanding exceptions to repose statutes, allowing non-pecuniary damages and embracing collective redress mechanisms such as class actions. Only by holding manufacturers fully accountable can the aviation industry be anchored in a culture of safety that matches its global importance.
Joshi, Sudhanwa, Tort at the Altar of Aviation Accidents: A Scholarly Study of Product Liability in Aviation (October 15, 2025).
Leave a Reply