California Aviation Accident Lawyer

Aviation accident litigation may require evaluation of weather decision-making, instrument approaches, mechanical maintenance histories, NTSB reports, FAA airworthiness directives, and pilot certification requirements. David L. Milligan’s public attorney profile describes him as an instrument-rated pilot. Technical causation questions still require the relevant records and appropriately qualified experts.

• General aviation crashes (Part 91 operations) — single-engine, twin-engine, light jet
• Commercial passenger and cargo accidents (Parts 121 and 135)
• Helicopter accidents — including emergency medical services (HEMS), tour, and utility
• Pilot error and weather-related causation
• Mechanical failure and maintenance negligence
• Air traffic control and ground services
• Aircraft component manufacturer liability (engines, avionics, structural)
• Wrongful death actions arising from aviation accidents

The work depends on the aircraft, operation, evidence, and disputed issues. Flight experience can inform questions; the relevant expert qualifications and evidentiary foundation still matter.

• Identify the record. Evaluate available flight, weather, maintenance, and investigative material while distinguishing observations from opinions and unresolved questions.
• Examine the decisions. Assess what the pilot and other participants knew, the conditions they faced, applicable requirements, and the alternatives supported by the evidence.
• Match expertise to the issue. Aircraft performance, maintenance, human factors, and medical causation can require different qualified experts. An instrument rating alone does not establish expertise in every disputed subject.

The NTSB describes its investigative process as fact gathering, analysis, a probable-cause determination, and safety recommendations. The scope and timing vary. A safety investigation and a civil claim serve different purposes; the existence of an agency report does not itself establish a party’s civil liability.

Use of NTSB material in litigation requires attention to statutory restrictions and the foundation for the particular material. The office must evaluate the actual report, evidence, and governing law before advising on admissibility. Preservation needs also require prompt, case-specific review.

The legal framework changes significantly based on what kind of aircraft was involved:

• General aviation. Personal, business, and flight-training aircraft operated under 14 C.F.R. Part 91. The General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), 49 U.S.C. § 40101 note, provides an 18-year statute of repose that bars most product-defect claims against manufacturers where the aircraft or component is older than 18 years. GARA has important exclusions (knowing misrepresentation, emergency medical, manufacturer warranty); those exclusions often decide whether the case has merit.
• Commercial / Part 121 and 135. Scheduled air carriers and on-demand charter are governed by stricter operational rules. The Montreal Convention (international) and the Death on the High Seas Act (over open ocean) can apply. For international accidents, venue selection is intricate and strategic.
• Rotorcraft. Helicopter crashes raise unique issues: autorotation capability, main-rotor and tail-rotor dynamics, EMS operations (often at night, in poor weather, under time pressure), and characteristic failure modes (mast bumping in some rotor systems; tail-rotor authority loss).
• Agricultural and utility. Crop dusting, pipeline patrol, and power-line work operate at low altitudes with dense human-factors risk. Cases frequently turn on pilot fatigue, training adequacy, and employer work-rules enforcement.

Aviation cases involve a layered legal framework: Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) set the technical standards; the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and its successors govern federal jurisdiction; the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 note) creates an 18-year statute of repose for aircraft component manufacturers; the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) applies to certain over-water accidents; and California state law governs negligence, wrongful death (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60), and survival actions where federal preemption does not apply. Each case requires careful analysis of which legal regime controls and where to file.

Depending on the questions presented, an investigation may require flight-operation, engineering, reconstruction, weather, or human-factors expertise. The need for a particular expert, the available foundation, and the admissibility of agency materials must be assessed in the actual case. Wreckage, maintenance records, and flight data may require prompt preservation.