Texas high court hears dispute over whether flight manual restarts federal statute of repose

The Supreme Court of Texas heard arguments in case number 240883 that asked the court to decide whether a federal statute of repose preempts state-law product-liability suits against aircraft manufacturers and, specifically, whether a helicopter flight manual (or a subsection of it) counts as a "part" under that federal provision.

Relators' counsel argued the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion by allowing the case to proceed despite the federal statute. Counsel contended the relevant safety feature here—the engine cowling and instructions about securing it—have been present for more than 18 years and are addressed in the manual, so no manufacturer action within the repose window has caused the accident. Counsel summarized the position this way: the manual and its instructions were in place "from the beginning," and the plaintiffs "have not identified anything" the manufacturer did within the last 18 years that caused the accident.

Several justices pressed on what it means for a manual to be a "part." One justice asked whether adding a new safety procedure to a manual or publishing an updated manual would count as replacing or adding a part that restarts the repose period. Counsel for the relators replied that courts generally treat flight manuals as…