# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Chase v. Lockheed Corp. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_1586%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1996 - **Citation:** 519 U.S. 1028 ## Text \"/ "tw No. 96 §50 0CI 319% LPS + # fee In The Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1995 + SIGRID CHASE, DEBORAH CLEYMAN, JUDY GORDON, SULEMA R. VILLARREAL, ELVIRA HERRERA, SUSAN JEAN PRICE, SYLVIA GARZA, individually and in their representative capacities; BARBARA KNUTSON, DAVID EDWARD PEREZ, JOSEPH MANUEL PEREZ, JOHN PAUL PEREZ, DANIEL RICHARD PEREZ, individually; and ESTHER PEREZ, as next friend and guardian of JAMES PEREZ, a minor, Petitioners, Vs. LOCKHEED CORPORATION and GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Respondents. ¢ Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ° Mark Hicks Counsel of Record Hicxs, ANDERSON & B ium, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioners 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2402 Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 374-8171 HAGGARD, Parks & Stone, P.A. Speiser, Krause & Mapo e, P.C. QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR DEFENSE FORMULATED IN BOYLE V. UNITED TECH- NOLOGIES SHIELDS A SUPPLIER OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM LIABILITY FOR INJURIES AND DEATH CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN A COMPONENT PART OF THE EQUIPMENT WHERE (1) THE GOVERN- MENT DID NOT SUBSTANTIVELY EVALUATE AND THEREAFTER APPROVE THE PARTICULAR FEATURE OF THE COMPONENT CLAIMED TO BE DEFECTIVE; (2) THE SUPPLIER ALTERED THE COMPONENT PART MANUFACTURER’S ORIGINAL DESIGN, WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, WITHOUT INFORMING THE GOVERNMENT OR THE COMPONENT PART MANUFACTURER; AND (3) THE GOVERNMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPO- NENT’S PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION DID NOT EQUATE TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUPPLIER’S DESIGN ALTERATION AND THE RISK POSED THEREBY. Il. WHETHER THE CHOICE AND APPLICATION OF GEORGIA LAW TO PETITIONERS’ TORT CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF AN AIRCRASH OUTSIDE OF GEOR- GIA IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR AND VIOLATES DUE PROCESS WHERE PETITIONERS AND THEIR DECEDENTS HAD NO CONTACTS WITH GEORGIA AND EVEN GEORGIA COURTS WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED GEORGIA SUBSTANTIVE LAW HAD SUIT BEEN BROUGHT THERE. ii LIST OF PARTIES The names of all parties to the proceedings in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed are as follows: Veda Bradshaw James W. Chase Sigrid Chase Deborah Cleyman Alicia Galvan Lorenzo Galvan Laquinta Gardner Samuel Gardner, Sr. Sylvia Garza General Electric Corporation Judy Gordon Elvira Herrera Barbara Knutson Glynda Knutson Lockheed Corporation Gloria Mendoza Daniel Richard Perez David Edward Perez Esther Perez James Perez John Paul Perez Joseph Manuel Perez Olga Perez Susan Jean Price Veronica Sheffield Sulema R. Villarreal Ofelia Wilson iii LIST OF PARTIES - Continued Petitioners are unaware of any parent or subsidiary company of any party to be listed. Petitioners defer to - Respondents Lockheed Corporation and General Electric Corporation on this point. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CAFS GGMUD WURMEWEINE? 0 os cccesn xadevusenswaxaga i LPS SEN RONUUNUUEE WA GON4C CCAD) RRC Coa AL ORAS ineR CON ii pe RS i err erere rer error iv SO Ge PERF SOUR Co. Spc dace usdcctesesevaces vi Cr ee IOE UURNEF Kit ban ckad es anseatipekssscaedans 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. ..............000. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED....... 1 SEARS GO TERE CAGE. oo cc ccivccacsesussescs 2 (i) Overview of Proceedings Below ............... 2 Ce NE Sige y Sen VERE GAS KEK oad ee eae eae sais 3 Pin, WE NU 5 6 44504 cab ods Ke ncKAs eee enansy) 3 ie WE MINOR. ort inceeccehsvapedeesascs 5 C. Texas’ and Georgia’s contacts for choice-of- PREETI rE ee re Te Cee Ory TT eT ee 6 D. The government contractor defense ....... 7 (iii) The Court of Appeals’ Ruling................ 8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........... 10 Vv TABLE OF CONTENTS —- Continued Page I. THE DEFENSE FORMULATED IN BOYLE DOES % NOT SHIELD A SUPPLIER OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM LIABILITY FOR INJURIES AND DEATH CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN A COMPONENT PART OF THE EQUIPMENT WHERE (1) THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT SUB- STANTIVELY EVALUATE AND THEREAFTER APPROVE THE PARTICULAR FEATURE OF THE COMPONENT CLAIMED TO BE DEFEC- TIVE; (2) THE SUPPLIER ALTERED THE COM- PONENT PART MANUFACTURER’S ORIGINAL DESIGN, WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS, WITHOUT INFORMING THE GOVERNMENT OR THE COMPONENT PART MANUFACTURER; AND (3) THE GOVERNMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPONENT’S PHYSICAL CONFIGURA- TION DID NOT EQUATE TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUPPLIER’S DESIGN ALTERATION AND THE KISK POSED THEREBY ........ccecvscaee 12 Il. THE CHOICE AND APPLICATION OF GEOR- GIA LAW TO PETITIONERS’ TORT CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF AN AIR CRASH OUTSIDE OF GEORGIA IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR AND VIOLATES DUE PROCESS WHERE PETI- TIONERS AND THEIR DECEDENTS HAD NO CONTACTS WITH GEORGIA AND EVEN ‘GEORGIA COURTS WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED GEORGIA LAW HAD SUIT BEEN PR NGE, - SERED 0-655 -c0 ccke Georgia’s policy interest in protecting those that design, manufacture and release products into the stream of commerce in Georgia bears the most significant rela- tionship to the facts underlying plaintiffs’ cause of action. Accordingly, 1S Texas.courts have not hesitated to apply foreign law to a products liability case, even when that application leads to the invocation of a statute of repose. See Crisman, 748 S.W.2d 273. App. 33 IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for the application of Georgia law to the issue of liability is GRANTED. /s/ Morey L. Sear MOREY L. SEAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE App. 34 APPENDIX 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION IN RE: AIR DISASTER AT ) MDL DOCKET RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, ) NO. 5-92-MD-919 GERMANY, ON AUGUST 29, ) ALL CASES 1990 ) ORAL DEPOSITION OF RICHARD E. YOUNG OCTOBER 12, 1993 + x * [p. 32] mainly because I don’t think I could understand it well enough to ask you. A. Yeah. But - Q. So you and I are just going to be talking about your memorandum that you wrote. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. A. And that’s basically - I think we’ve pretty well covered everything that I can offer in terms of this partic- ular document. Q. Well, let me see if I’ve got some more questions with it and we'll see — we’re not quite through the para- graph and perhaps we can ask. Did you talk to Mr. Gulik about this? a a eet App. 35 A. Yes. Q. And “about this,” I mean about paragraph 3? A. Yeah. I showed him the wiring diagram and he offered his comments and we discussed it to some degree. Q. Did he tell you that G.E. had already designed it, that there shouldn’t be two wires on one grounding con- nection? m A. No, I don’t think he said that. Q. Well, did he say that you designed it to have separate grounds? [p. 33] A. He said it was designed with separate grounding pins for each of the circuits. Q. Now, would the separate grounding pins or studs - strike that. Did you discuss with him the preclu- sion of a single point failure mechanism as a result of using two wires to one grounding pin? A. I'm sorry. I didn’t quite understand what you were — Q. All right. Well, in the last sentence in that para- graph the statement if made by you, “Splitting the com- mon ground” — that means not having more than one wire to one pin; is that what that means? A. That’s what I would interpret that, yes. Q. - “would preclude a single point failure mecha- nism.” A. That’s right. App. 36 Q. And did Mr. Gulik tell you that? A. If the stud broke off — off of the pylon, or wher- ever it’s connected, and the two wires were together, obviously, then you would lose both grounding — or both circuits. Q. And if you had - and that would be a single point failure? A. Yeah. If they had two wires connected to [p. 34] the same ground and the ground broke off of the bulk- head or the fixture and there was no affective [sic] ground, yes, you would. Q. Well, you would have the potential for a single point failure by just putting the two wires on the pin, would you not, sir? A. If the pin breaks off, yes. Q. If you put the two wires on the pin, you have created a potential for a single point failure, have you not, sir? MR. SPRAGUE: Object to leading the witness. THE WITNESS: I have already stated that I am not an aircraft electrical engineer. I have no recollection — or no background that I can consider myself to be an expert in critiquing whether or not you run two wires to the same pin or not. I can tell you from my experience, yes, I know that if you lose that pin and it falls off and you had two wires coming to it, yes, you lose your ground. Now, the advisability of that or not, I just don’t feel that I’m in a position to be an expert witness to comment App. 37 on that. I am not familiar with aircraft wiring, and design practices, and military specifications, and those things. So I [p. 40] marked for identification) Q. (BY MR. PARKS:) Was G.E. required to design the electrical system of the thrust reverser system so that it would not have a single point failure mechanism in it? A. It stated - we met the design requirements as specified in that particular document. Q. Would that be one of those - is it your under- standing that you do not have a single point failure mechanism? A. That would be my understanding of what the words say. Q. And was your understanding based upon what Mr. Gulik told you at the time you wrote this — A. Yeah. Q. - letter that originally G.E. had complied with that requirement; is that correct? A. We complied with the requirements of that speci- fication. That's correct. Q. I’m only interested, sir, as to single point failure mechanisms. You complied with that — that was a prohi- bition by the specifications, was it not? A. Yes. App. 38 Q. And you complied with that is what [p. 41] Mr. Gulik told you? A. Yes. Q. And was it your understanding then that Lock- heed had changed that without you [sic] knowledge; is that correct? MR. SPRAGUE: I object to that leading ques- tion. THE WITNESS: I’ve answered that question three times now. MR. PARKS: Well, I don’t think so. MR. O'NEILL: I'll let you go ahead and answer it. I think he’s answered it twice, not three times. The last one would have answered three times. THE WITNESS: I had no prior knowledge that there was a — that the two circuits in the wiring harness that is the General Electric design end of the thrust reverser. We have the thrust reverser wiring harness and we provide connectors, and from there on out, it’s air- frame wiring; and we provided for single ground capa- bility. Not single point, but each circuit had it’s separate ground pin. That’s the way we designed it. That design, therefore, met the requirement of that specification. I have no comment about what took - I have no knowledge of how Lockheed and their * + * [p. 60] had two pins, but in fact had one pin; is that right? MR. PARKS: Yes. App. 39 MR. O'NEILL: Okay. Q. (BY MR. PARKS:) I want you to assume that General Electric had designed - pursuant to 41060 had designed a system, this System we've been talking about, which provided for two wires to one ground for the thrust reverser indication lights. Would that be a viola- tion of the safety provisions of this particular contract? A. In my opinion, if we run two circuits into one ground pin, it would have been a violation of the require- ments of this document. Q. Thank you, Mr. O’Neill Did you - MR. O’NEILL: Excuse me one minute. Let’s have that question read back. (The requested material was read back) MR. O’NEILL: Hold on just a second. Yes. The indication system was on the same ground. I think you need to rephrase your question. I think you misstated it. MR. PARKS: I’m talking about the indication system and the actuator system, the * * [p. 68] specification that you have in front of you. THE WITNESS: Which specific paragraph of the specification are you - Q. (BY MR. PARKS:) Paragraph A, sir, on page 35. A. Whether a single ground point contact would fall into that category? I think that I’d have to take consider- able more time to study it. And, as I’ve stated, I really App. 40 have no expert opinion to say that a single point with two separate wires going into it does or does not constitute a single point failure. Q. Well, if G.E. had not split the common ground, as referred to in your letter of February 20, 1992, would that have been a violation of the contract? A. If we provided and hooked up both of them into one pin, in my opinion we would not have met the specification as it’s written in the spec. MR. O’NEILL: Now, note that he’s saying it would not have met this specification and you keep ask- ing about the contract, which is the problem. MR. PARKS: Okay. All right. Q. (BY MR. PARKS:) So we're talking about the specification which is contained in Deposition * + * [p. 171] it there? A. Yes. Q. - that you had written to the Air Force and your statement in there concerning G.E.’s position about the fact that a single ground had been provided in the design as you — A. Separate. Q. Excuse me. — a separate ground had been pro- vided in the design which you believe met G.E.’s compli- ance requirements with the specifications. A. Yes. App. 41 Q. And you recall also you told me earlier that you did not realize that there was a double ground being utilized on this aircraft until Dover, when you and Mr. Gulik were there with Mr. - A. No. I'll clarify that. I was under the impression that there were separate grounding circuits on the thrust reverser circuitry. Q. And you learned that they had been using a double wire on one single ground when you got to Dover is what you told me? A. Two wires coming into one point. Q. Yes. A. Yes. That’s what was told to me, yes. Q. At Dover? [p. 172] A. At Dover. Q. At any time between the time of the original design of the thrust reversers and the information that you got at Dover concerning that, do you know whether the Air Force approved the double wire to the single ground? — A. No. I would have no way to know that. Q. Do you know whether anyone at Lockheed advised the Air Force of the double wire to the single ground? A. No. I would have no way to know that, no. Q. Do you know of anyone at Lockheed who advised, orally or in writing, anyone at General Electric App. 42 of the fact that they were going to use a double wire to the single ground? A. No. I don’t have knowledge of any of that ever taking place. Q. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Gulik at General Electric concerning that whole subject matter, the double wire to the single ground? A. Yes. Because it was brought up as part of the safety investigation at Dover. Q. Before that? A. Before that? No. Didn’t know about it before that. [p. 173] Q. Was it your impression, and I realize that it’s only an impression unless he indicated to you out- right, that Mr. Gulik did not know that there was a double ground - a double wire to the single ground being used until Dover? A. That's correct. Q. Was he surprised? A. I believe that that was the first that he was aware that there was a single ground being brought off - Q. With the double wire? A. - with - you know, to a wire coming off of each of our connectors and then connected to a single point. Yes. That was - as far as I know, that was his first knowledge of that. Se App. 43 2. Did he express any feelings or impressions or opinions about that to Mr. - to anyone at Lockheed when he found that out at Dover? A. He didn’t find it out. Mr. Mills brought it up. Q. Okay. When he learned about it from Mr. - A. When he learned about it from Mr. Mills. Q. What did he say to Mr. Mills, do you know? A. He didn’t offer any real comments, to my knowl- edge and recollection. You know, that’s just - * * » App. 44 APPENDIX 5 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 1 [Letterhead Illegible] February 20, 1992 SUBJECT: C5 TF39 THRUST REVERSER ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MODIFICATION REFERENCE: SAALC Proposed Thrust Reverser Electrical System Modification Program Mr. Charles Jurek Deputy Division Chief LAD Kelly Air Force Base, Texas On November 21, 1991 GEAE received a wiring dia- gram and an outline of a SAALC program plan to modify the C5/TF39 Thrust Reverser Electrical System. At SAALC’s request, GEAE Thrust Reverser Design and Sys- tems Engineering has completed a review of the refer- enced Modification Program. As you are undoubtedly aware, the proposed modifications address aspects of the Thrust Reverser System that were not originally designed by General Electric. However, in light of our long mutu- ally satisfactory business relationship, GEAE is happy to provide the following comments. The proposed modifications will increase their com- plexity of the overall system and introduce additional electrical connections as well as a more complex arrange- ment of switches. It is GEAE’s opinion that the additional connectors and switches could have a significantly detri- mental impact on overall system reliability. App. 45 GEAE recommends that SAALC provides a separate ground for the Thrust Reverser System indication lights, i.e., split the common ground. In fact, GEAE designed the system with separate grounds: thus provisions for sepa- rate grounds are already available in the existing Thrust Reverser wiring harness. Splitting the common ground would preclude a single point failure mechanism and provide the desired redundant warning system. GEAE Thrust Reverser Design and Systems Engineer- ing personnel are available to discuss our recommenda- tions at you [sic] convenience, if desired. If you have any questions, please advise. /s/ R. E. Young R. E. Young, Manager Phone 513 552-3133 TF39 Programs Fax_ 513-552-3299 L/B 94 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_1586%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.