When major commercial aircraft crash, the consequences ripple across continents. Hundreds of lives may be lost in a single incident, and the investigation that follows can expose design decisions that prioritized cost or schedule over safety. Product liability lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus represent some of the largest and most complex litigation in civil law, with settlements and verdicts reaching hundreds of millions of dollars in cases involving defective aircraft.
These cases matter not just for the compensation they provide to victims and families, but for the accountability they impose on the manufacturers whose products carry millions of passengers daily. When design defects or manufacturing failures cause crashes, the legal system provides a mechanism for holding even the world's largest aerospace companies responsible for the harm they cause.
Product Liability Theories in Aviation
Aircraft manufacturers face liability under three primary product liability theories. Design defect claims allege that the aircraft was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous. Manufacturing defect claims allege that specific aircraft departed from design specifications in ways that caused danger. Failure to warn claims allege that manufacturers didn't adequately inform pilots and operators about known risks and limitations.
Design defect claims probe the choices manufacturers made in creating their aircraft. Every design involves tradeoffs—performance versus cost, capability versus simplicity, innovation versus proven technology. When those tradeoffs result in aircraft that crash due to design-inherent problems, manufacturers face liability. The question is whether a reasonable alternative design would have prevented the accident while still providing acceptable functionality.
The MCAS system that caused two Boeing 737 MAX crashes illustrates design defect liability. The system was designed to address handling characteristics caused by larger engines, but its design created risks that Boeing minimized or concealed. When MCAS malfunctioned and pilots couldn't overcome it, the design defect caused hundreds of deaths. Boeing's settlements and ongoing litigation demonstrate how design defects create massive liability.
The Scale of Major Manufacturer Litigation
Crashes of Boeing and Airbus aircraft generate litigation of unprecedented scale. A single crash may produce hundreds of wrongful death claims from victims of numerous nationalities. Litigation spans multiple jurisdictions with different applicable laws. Discovery involves millions of documents from manufacturers, suppliers, airlines, and regulators. Expert witnesses address everything from metallurgy to human factors to corporate decision-making.
The financial stakes match the complexity. Individual wrongful death claims against major manufacturers can exceed 0 million for high-earning victims or those from jurisdictions allowing substantial non-economic damages. Multiplied across hundreds of victims, single-accident exposure can reach billions of dollars. These numbers explain why manufacturers vigorously contest liability and why plaintiffs must be prepared for protracted litigation.
Major manufacturers have tremendous resources to defend themselves. Boeing's market capitalization exceeds 00 billion; Airbus is comparable. They employ the best aviation defense lawyers and can outspend any individual plaintiff. Success requires not just valid claims but strategic coalition-building and aggressive litigation that prevents manufacturers from using their resources to outlast claimants.
Coordination and Consolidation
Mass aviation accidents typically result in consolidated litigation. When crashes kill dozens or hundreds of victims, individual lawsuits would be inefficient and potentially inconsistent. Federal courts have procedures—multidistrict litigation or MDL—for consolidating related cases before a single judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings. This consolidation allows efficient discovery and consistent rulings on common issues.
Within consolidated proceedings, plaintiffs' counsel coordinate through steering committees and work-sharing arrangements. Lead counsel conduct discovery, file motions, and negotiate with defendants on behalf of all plaintiffs. Individual attorneys retain responsibility for their specific clients but benefit from the collective effort. This structure levels the playing field somewhat against manufacturers' substantial defense resources.
Bellwether trials may resolve liability questions applicable to all cases. Rather than trying hundreds of individual cases, courts select representative cases for trial. The outcomes inform settlement negotiations for remaining cases. Plaintiffs who prevail in bellwether trials gain tremendous leverage; defendants who lose face pressure to resolve the entire litigation.
Regulatory Certification and Product Liability
Aircraft manufacturers argue that FAA certification of their products proves they weren't defective. If the FAA—the expert regulatory agency—approved the design, how can courts second-guess that determination? This regulatory compliance defense has some force but doesn't eliminate manufacturer liability.
Courts consistently hold that regulatory compliance establishes minimum standards, not necessarily reasonable care. An aircraft can meet FAA certification requirements while still being unreasonably dangerous. Regulations don't address every possible design choice, and manufacturers may know of risks that regulations don't specifically require them to address. Compliance with regulations is evidence of reasonableness but not a complete defense.
Moreover, the certification process itself has come under scrutiny. The FAA increasingly relies on manufacturer self-certification through delegated authority programs. Manufacturers have incentives to minimize problems that might delay certification. When this process fails to identify defects—as it failed with the 737 MAX—the certification provides less protection against liability claims.
The Government Contractor Defense
Military aircraft manufacturers sometimes invoke the government contractor defense, arguing that they built what the government specified and shouldn't be liable for following government requirements. This defense has limited application to commercial aviation, where manufacturers make design choices themselves rather than following government specifications.
Even where applicable, the defense has significant limitations. Manufacturers remain responsible for manufacturing defects that depart from specifications. They must warn the government of known dangers even if the government specified the design. And they cannot invoke the defense if they influenced the specification process or withheld information that would have changed government requirements.
International Dimensions
Major aircraft crashes often involve international elements—foreign airlines, victims from multiple countries, accidents occurring outside the United States. These international dimensions create jurisdictional complexity that affects where lawsuits can be filed and what law applies.
Forum selection significantly impacts case outcomes. United States courts generally provide the most favorable environment for product liability plaintiffs—larger damage awards, broader discovery, and jury trials create advantages compared to many foreign courts. Manufacturers prefer defending in jurisdictions with more limited liability exposure. Battles over where cases will be heard often precede substantive litigation.
The Montreal Convention affects claims arising from international flights but doesn't eliminate product liability claims against manufacturers. The Convention governs airline liability to passengers; manufacturer liability exists separately under domestic product liability law. Victims of international crashes typically pursue claims against both airlines under the Convention and manufacturers under product liability theories.
Settlement Dynamics
Most major aviation product liability cases settle rather than going to trial. The uncertainty of jury verdicts, the expense of protracted litigation, and the publicity of trials all encourage settlement. But settlement negotiations in manufacturer cases involve sophisticated parties with substantial resources and experience.
Settlement timing varies by case posture. Some cases settle early when liability is obvious and manufacturers want to avoid discovery that might reveal damaging information. Others settle only after extensive litigation has clarified the evidence and legal issues. Cases involving particularly egregious manufacturer conduct may require trial to achieve full value, as manufacturers resist settlements that acknowledge the worst aspects of their behavior.
Individual settlement amounts depend on victim-specific damages. Within mass litigation, victims with higher economic losses—young, high-earning decedents—receive larger shares. Non-economic damages vary by applicable law, which may differ depending on victim nationality and accident location. Each family's recovery reflects their particular losses within the overall settlement framework.
Pursuing Claims Against Major Manufacturers
Victims of crashes potentially caused by aircraft defects should engage aviation attorneys with specific experience in manufacturer litigation. These cases require resources to match sophisticated defendants, expertise in complex technical issues, and experience navigating the procedural complexities of mass aviation litigation. The stakes are too high for attorneys learning as they go.
Early engagement allows participation in coordinated litigation structures that share costs and leverage collective strength. Attorneys who delay may find important decisions already made and their ability to influence case direction limited. The best outcomes require prompt action and strategic positioning within the plaintiff coalition.