Journal of Air Law and Commerce
Abstract
Commercial aviation disasters expose catastrophic breakdowns in engineering, regulatory oversight, corporate governance, and human systems. From the Boeing 737 MAX tragedies involving Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 to the recent domestic crash of American Airlines Flight 5342, modern aviation disasters have become defining legal events that test the boundaries of product liability, federal preemption, sovereign immunity, and transnational treaty law. This Article examines how aviation mass-casualty events evolve into complex litigation involving aircraft manufacturers, airlines, regulatory agencies, and governmental entities, and how those legal frameworks differ in international versus domestic contexts.
Beyond legal doctrine, this Article situates aviation disasters within a broader human and systemic framework, incorporating empirical research on trauma, human factors analysis, and the psychological impact on survivors, families, and first responders. It argues that aviation catastrophes are not merely technical failures but foreseeable results of institutional decisions.
Drawing on Texas products liability law, the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and federal regulations, this Article analyzes design defect and failure-to-warn claims arising from the Boeing 737 MAX’s maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) including issues of safer alternative design, regulatory misrepresentation, and post-crash remedial measures. It further explores the interplay between federal preemption doctrines and state tort law remedies, arguing that concealment and certification irregularities can overcome traditional preemption defenses. The Article also examines the Montreal Convention and its role in governing international aviation disasters, including the remedies it permits and the limitations it imposes.
In the domestic context, this Article provides a detailed examination of governmental liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), analyzing how sovereign immunity is partially waived for aviation-related negligence while simultaneously constrained by statutory limitations. It explores the procedural prerequisites to suit, the prohibition on punitive damages, and the statutory cap limiting recovery to the amount presented in the claimant’s administrative demand. Particular attention is given to the discretionary function exception and the doctrinal line courts draw between protected policy-based regulatory decisions and actionable operational negligence. This is an inquiry that often determines whether families may proceed past jurisdictional dismissal.
The Article then contrasts the remedies available under the FTCA with those recoverable in Texas wrongful death and survival actions. This comparison is further extended to international aviation litigation governed by the Montreal Convention. By juxtaposing these frameworks, the Article demonstrates how the identity of the defendant and the situs of the crash can dramatically alter the scope of compensation available.
Ultimately, this Article contends that meaningful reform requires more than post-disaster compensation. It calls for strengthened certification protocols, enhanced transparency between manufacturers and regulators, mandatory pilot training safeguards, and clearer transnational accountability mechanisms. The law must do more than assign blame. It must restore trust, deliver justice to grieving families, and incentivize systemic change to prevent the next disaster.
Recommended Citation
Clayton Rainey, When Planes Fall and People Die: An International and Domestic Overview of Disaster in the Sky,
91
J. Air L. & Com.
3
(2026)
