Thornton v. M7 Aerospace LP

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant, as successor who purchased assets from airplane manufacturer, owed duty to plaintiffs-victims of airplane crash to warn plane’s operator of need to install more enhanced warning system that might have avoided instant plane crash into mountainside. Purchaser of assets generally has no duty to warn of defect in its predecessor’s product, and plaintiffs failed to show that defendant: (1) had service contracts on predecessor’s airplanes; (2) covered particular airplane under service contract; (3) actually serviced plane at issue in crash; or (4) had knowledge of alleged defect and location of owner of subject airplane. Fact that plane’s owner was included in defendant’s customer list did not require different result. Ct. further found no existence of voluntary undertaking on part of defendant where plaintiffs failed to show any reliance of plane’s owner on defendant’s actions related to plane.