# Title 28 — Judicial Procedure, Civil

## Chapter 28-01.4 — Aviation Manufacturer Products Liability

### § 28-01.4-01. Definitions.

As used in this chapter:
1. "Aircraft" means general aviation light craft that is powered and intended to fly above
the ground; is designed to carry one person or more, but with a maximum seating
capacity of fewer than twenty passengers; and weighs less than twelve thousand five
hundred pounds [5669.9 kilograms].
2. "Aircraft component" means a manufactured part or assembly intended for use in the
construction, replacement, or repair of an aircraft. The term includes any complete
aircraft subsystem, including the aircraft engine, that carries its own manufacturer's
warranty or services provided separately from the warranty of the manufacturer of the
aircraft.
3. "Aviation manufacturer" means a manufacturer of aircraft or aircraft components who
has its place of manufacture and place of production of aircraft or aircraft components
located within this state. The term includes a manufacturer located in this state who
imports raw materials, components, and aircraft subassemblies from outside the state
for manufacturing purposes. The term also includes a person who modifies, maintains,
alters, repairs, or installs aircraft components in aircraft in accordance with federal
aviation administration regulations and holds a repair station certificate issued by the
federal aviation administration.
4. "State-of-the-art product" means an aircraft or aircraft component manufactured by
utilizing the most recent scientific, mechanical, and technological developments at the
time of manufacture.
### § 28-01.4-02. Compliance with federal standards - Presumptions and defenses.

1. There is a disputable presumption that a product is free from any defect or defective
condition if the product was in compliance with:
a. Government standards established for that product; or
b. If no government standards exist, applicable industry standards that were in
existence at the time of manufacture.
2. An aviation manufacturer or a seller of aircraft or aircraft components may utilize the
presumption provided by subsection 1 if the manufacture, design, formulation,
inspection, testing, packaging, labeling, or warning complied with:
a. Federal aviation administration or department of transportation regulations that
relate to the safety or establish safety standards for the aircraft or aircraft
component and which existed at the time the aircraft or aircraft component was
produced;
b. Any premarket approval or certification by the federal aviation administration or
any other federal agency; and
c. Applicable industry standards that were in existence at the time the plans,
designs, warnings, or instructions for the aircraft or aircraft component or the
methods and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting, and testing the product
were adopted.
3. The presumption under subsection 1 is not available if the plaintiff proves by clear and
convincing evidence that the aviation manufacturer or product seller knowingly and in
violation of applicable agency regulations made misrepresentations, made illegal
payments to an official for the purpose of securing approval, committed fraud, or
concealed evidence.
4. There is an absolute defense to any product liability action brought against an aviation
manufacturer when a claimant, in violation of federal aviation administration
regulations, has used alcohol or illicit drugs while operating or using an aircraft or
aircraft component.
5. This chapter does not affect the authority of the federal aviation administration or any
other federal agency with regard to the regulation of aircraft and aircraft components.

### § 28-01.4-03. State-of-the-art defense.

An aviation manufacturer or seller of aircraft or aircraft components may not be held liable
for any personal injury, death, or damage to property sustained as a result of an alleged defect
in a state-of-the-art product. An aircraft or aircraft component is presumed to be a
state-of-the-art product if the plaintiff cannot show by a preponderance of the evidence that a
safer aircraft or aircraft component was on the market at the time of manufacture. No evidence
of subsequent design or modification of an aircraft or aircraft component is admissible to prove
that an aircraft or aircraft component is not a state-of-the-art product. The state-of-the-art
comparisons must be made to products with similar-intended utility. The trier of the fact shall
consider the defense that the designer's choice averted greater peril for a large subclass of
intended users and shall consider the economic viability of the component or product.
### § 28-01.4-04. Useful safe life - Statute of repose - Statute of limitation.

1. An aviation manufacturer may not be held liable in a product liability action if the
defendant establishes that the harm was caused after the period of useful safe life of
the aircraft or aircraft component had expired. The useful safe life of an aircraft or
aircraft component may be measured in units of time or in other units that accurately
gauge the useful safe life of a product.
2. In a claim for relief that involves injury more than ten years after the date of first
delivery of the aircraft or aircraft component to the first user, purchaser, or lessee, a
disputable presumption arises that the harm was caused after the useful safe life had
expired. The presumption may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. If
the aviation manufacturer or seller expressly warrants that its product can be utilized
safely for a period longer than ten years, the period of repose is extended according to
the warranty or promise.
3. With respect to any aircraft component that replaced another product originally in, or
which was added to, the aircraft, and which is alleged to have caused the claimant's
damages, no claim for damages may be made after the useful safe life of the
component, the period stated in the warranty, or ten years after manufacture of the
component, whichever is later.
4. A product liability action may not be brought more than two years after the time the
claimant discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, the
harm and cause of the action.
