UAS Case Law

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are ubiquitous and case law has not caught up to their expanded use. The cases below are a sampling of those claims and exemplify arguments that may arise in UAS cases throughout the American legal system. There are very few existing cases dealing directly with drones, but the cases presented here provide general topics of discussion that will be drawn upon as UAS case law expands. 

Huerta v. Pirker, Decisional Order, No. CP-217 (N.T.S.B. Mar. 6, 2014)
An administrative law judge from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) fell under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) definition of “model aircraft,” and, as such, the FAA lacked legal authority to fine UAS operators. While the judge’s decisional order was ultimately overturned by the NTSB, the case highlights one example of confusion that will face litigants in the field of UAS and drone litigation.

In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 1996)
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the jury’s ruling that defendant Northwest Airlines was liable for the deaths of all passengers occurring from a crash shortly after takeoff; the court did not adopt the airline’s argument of a sophisticated user defense. Such a defense, while unsuccessful in this case, may not be available at all to UAS manufacturers who cannot argue that a UAS operator with no training is a sophisticated user.

Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 418 F. Supp. 829 (D. Okla. 1975)
To successfully prove a manufacturing defect claim, the plaintiff was required to prove that a defect existed in the airplane when leaving the care of the airplane manufacturer. A manufacturing defect claim would likely be the same for a UAS manufacturer.

Beck v. Thompson, 818 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1987)
After a plane crash that killed the plaintiff’s mother, a passenger in the plane, and the pilot, the plaintiff brought an unsuccessful claim of negligence per se against the deceased pilot’s estate, alleging that the pilot’s numerous errors constituted negligence per se. The court disagreed, suggesting that negligence per se in the context of aircraft operation requires significant negligence. But negligence per se claims against UAS operators may be possible, depending on a court’s review of the UAS operator’s experience and actions.

Hartman v. United States No. CIV-10-197-L, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125102 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 22, 2010)
The plaintiffs brought an unsuccessful claim against the United States when a plane crash was caused by a flock of birds, into which the plane inadvertently flew. While the claim was unsuccessful, a stronger claim might be made against operators who flew their UAS into restricted airspace, even accidentally.