On April 19, 2018, a 2001 Cirrus SR22 G1 crashed in Pennsylvania, resulting in the death of the pilot and passenger on board.  Plaintiff, the widow of the deceased passenger, sued the flight instruction school and two flight instructors who provided the pilot with flight instruction in the six months prior to the accident.  Plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to properly instruct the pilot in the use and operation of the aircraft's safety features, including the autopilot and the Cirrus Ballistic Parachute System [CAPS].  Plaintiff claimed that had the pilot been properly instructed and trained, the fatal accident would not have occurred.

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state

a claim (styled “preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer” in Pennsylvania), asserting that the Plaintiff's claim sounded in educational malpractice, which is not a recognized tort under Pennsylvania law.  The trial court agreed and sustained the defendants' preliminary objection, and dismissed the complaint.  In reaching its decision, the trial court analyzed Pennsylvania tort precedent, as well as the law of other states, and found that “no states other than Montana [] permit educational malpractice claims to be brought against public schools, private schools, trade schools, or specialty schools.” The trial court also concluded that educational malpractice claims are contrary to public policy.

On appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Plaintiff acknowledged that Pennsylvania law does not recognize educational malpractice claims against “traditional educational institutions,” but attempted to distinguish her claim by arguing that flight schools “teach [] a precise activity, which … is ultrahazardous.”

The Court rejected this argument and adopted the trial court's opinion as its own, which held that public policy concerns “stand regardless of the subject matter or the dangerousness of the content taught.”  Specifically, the court found that “[a] cause of action seeking damages for acts of negligence in the educational process must be precluded by considerations of public policy,” because (1) “there

is no clear definition of the standard of care for

a reasonably prudent flight school for instruction on airplane specific safety mechanisms;” (2) “it is difficult to determine if the Defendants' instruction on a certain subject would have prevented the Plaintiffs damages;” (3) it would cause a flood of litigation because “virtually every future plane crash will raise the specter of a negligent training claim against the flight school or aviation training center … for no other reason than they have an attenuated connection to the pilot's actions on the date of the crash since the flight school provided the pilot the knowledge to become licensed by the FAA;” and (4) “[t]rial courts have no business meddling in the field of day-to-day educational standards of pilot schools” particularly because “[f]ederal regulations clearly delineate standards for certification and operation of Part 141 schools.”

Grady v. Aero-Tech Servs., Inc., 2022 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 582* (Mar. 8, 2022).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.