United States: District Court Holds Contractor Not Liable For Army Helicopter Pilot's Paralysis And Confirms Continuing Viability Of Government Contractor Defense

In Linfoot v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co.'s ("MDHC") motion for summary judgment dismissing failure to warn claims arising out of the crash of an AH-6M model helicopter being piloted by Gary Linfoot during a mission south of Baghdad, Iraq. The court's decision provides an interesting analysis of failure to warn claims, and also reaffirms the continuing vitality of the government contractor defense.

Gary Linfoot was permanently paralyzed when an AH-6M model helicopter he was piloting crashed during a mission south of Baghdad, Iraq. While not a cause of the accident itself, Mr. Linfoot's injuries allegedly were exacerbated by the installation of a voice warning system ("VWS") in the crush box below his pilot seat, which lessened the crush box's ability to absorb the ground impact. The VWS installation was part of the Army's Mission Enhanced Little Bird ("MELB") reconfiguration program, which entailed converting the Army's MD-369FF/D model helicopters into an entirely new model, the "M" or MELB configuration.

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company neither manufactured the VWS in question nor selected its location in the helicopter; the location within the crush box was selected by the Army's Special Operations Aviation Regiment ("SOAR"). Nevertheless, Mr. Linfoot and his wife commenced litigation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against MDHC alleging that it should have warned the Army that putting anything, including the VWS, inside the crush box would diminish the crush box's efficacy. Linfoot v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., Case No. 3:09-cv-00639 (M.D. Ten. 2016).

MDHC contracted with the Army to supply MELB "kits" and to test the kits' component parts. The kits provided by MDHC did not include the VWS's (they were provided by Specialty Enterprises, Ltd.), although MDHC did correspond with the Army about the importance of including a VWS in the MELB configuration. The Army specifically limited the scope of the flight tests performed by MDHC, contracting with MDHC to test only the functionality of the VWS, not to assess its location. Although MDHC was not hired to assess the location of the VWS, there was undisputed testimony that an MDHC representative verbally recommended against installing the VWS in the crush box. The Army never claimed that MDHC violated either contract.

On MDHC's motion for summary judgment, the only issue before the court was whether "MDHC breached its duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs with respect to the 'design, manufacture, assembly, inspection, distribution, ... modification, [and] overhaul ... of the subject helicopter and its component parts, including ... the pilot's seat and component parts, and equipment under or about the pilot's seat' and that this breach was a proximate cause of Mr. Linfoot's injuries." MDHC argued that summary judgment was appropriate because:

  1. Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that MDHC's involvement with the MELB process and alleged failure to warn was a proximate cause of Mr. Linfoot's injuries;
  2. Plaintiffs' claims were non-justiciable and/or preempted by the combatant activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act;1 and
  3. Regardless of any duty to warn, MDHC was shielded from liability by the government contractor defense.

Failure to Warn

To prevail on the failure to warn claim, the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that MDHC had a duty to warn, that its warnings were inadequate, and that the inadequate warnings were a proximate cause of Mr. Linfoot's injuries.

Plaintiffs argued that MDHC's provision of the MELB kits gave rise to a duty to warn the Army that its own design was unsafe, and that the Army's redesign of these helicopters after the accident evidenced that a pre-accident warning would have elicited a similar design change prior to the accident. The court was unpersuaded that the post-accident design change demonstrated that a pre-accident warning would have elicited a change. To the contrary, there was evidence that an MDHC mechanic did warn the Army of the dangers of putting something in the crush box and the Army did nothing in response. The court also was unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' argument that this verbal warning was insufficient because it was not in writing, and because MDHC did not formally classify the VWS location as a hazard. Finally, the court agreed with MDHC that:

  1. Common sense would dictate against putting something in the crush box, the very purpose of which is to take up space, indicating that a warning should not have been needed;
  2. The Army's express limitations on the scope of MDHC's testing evidenced that a warning would not have brought about a design change (i.e., the Army wanted to avoid setting a precedent of having a contractor review and approve its designs/modifications); and
  3. The Army's rigorous design and approval process provided little room for MDHC to suggest design changes or for the Army to implement any such suggestions.

Accordingly, the court held that Plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie failure to warn claim and that MDHC was entitled to summary judgment on that claim.

Government Contractor Defense

Notwithstanding its holding that summary judgment should be granted on the failure to warn claim, the Court also addressed and agreed with MDHC's argument that, even if Plaintiffs could prove causation due to failure to warn, MDHC would be shielded from liability by the government contractor defense. This defense, articulated in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), is derived from the government's immunity from suit for the performance of a discretionary function. The Supreme Court determined in Boyle that the selection of an appropriate design for military equipment is a discretionary function. The government's immunity for that discretionary function has been extended to contractors that supply goods to the government.

The government contractor defense provides that "a government contractor may assert immunity when the government approved 'reasonably precise' specifications; the equipment conformed to those specifications; and the supplier/ contractor warned of those equipment dangers that were known to the supplier/contractor, but not the government." While noting that somewhat different factors generally apply in failure to warn cases, the district court held that the traditional Boyle factors were most appropriately applied here because the allegations were that MDHC failed to warn the Army itself, unlike the typical failure to warn case alleging that the contractor failed to provide a proper warning to the equipment users.

Applying the traditional Boyle analysis, the court found that the first two factors were readily met because (1) the design specification at issue—the location of the VWS—was generated by the government, and (2) no one disputed that the VWS was installed by another contractor in accordance with the Army's design. With regard to the third factor (the requirement that the contractor warn of dangers known to it but not the government), MDHC submitted expert evidence demonstrating that the Army was aware of the importance of protecting the space within the crush box. The policy rationale for this third factor—avoiding an incentive for the manufacturer to withhold knowledge of risks because providing a warning might disrupt the contract while withholding it would produce no liability—did not apply because MDHC had nothing to do with the manufacture or installation of the VWS and, therefore, had no incentive to withhold information about the dangers of installing it in the crush box. Accordingly, the court held that this third factor also was satisfied and that MDHC was entitled to summary judgment under the government contractor defense.

The court's government contractor defense holding serves as a reaffirmation of the defense's viability in cases against contractors that arise out of accidents involving military aircraft.


1. This issue ultimately was not addressed by the Court.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions