Fabia v Power Authority of the State of New York
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether New York workplace safety statutes and negligence claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) when injuries arise from the operation/design of a helicopter used for aerial powerline maintenance.
Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as preempted by federal law, citing 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.13(a) [no careless or reckless aircraft operation endangering life or property] and 14 CFR 91.3(a) [pilot in command has final authority and responsibility over aircraft operations], and finding field preemption under the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) [federal law creating a uniform system of air safety regulation].
The dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty of owners/contractors to provide a safe workplace] claims was reversed; the dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1) [requires owners/contractors to furnish proper elevation-related safety devices] and 241(6) [requires construction/demolition/excavation areas be operated to provide reasonable and adequate protection] claims was affirmed.
Although federal law occupies the field of air safety and conflicts with New York’s standards, common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims may proceed with the federal standard of care substituted (14 CFR 91.13[a]); however, strict-liability Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) irreconcilably conflict with 14 CFR 91.3(a) assigning final operational authority to the pilot and are fully preempted.
Background
The Power Authority of the State of New York (NYPA) owned powerlines in Beekmantown and hired Northline Utilities, LLC and Northline Ventures, Inc. to perform repairs. Northline subcontracted with Catalyst Aviation, LLC to transport linemen by helicopter equipped with an aerial work platform. On October 30, 2018, plaintiff Scott Fabia, a licensed pilot employed by Catalyst, was the co-pilot of Catalyst’s helicopter carrying two Northline linemen. While the linemen worked from the airborne platform, the helicopter contacted the powerlines, caught fire, and crashed. Fabia jumped from approximately 75 feet and was injured. He sued NYPA and the Northline entities for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
Lower Court Decision
After discovery, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted defendants’ CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, holding that plaintiff’s state-law claims were preempted because they conflicted with 14 CFR 91.13(a) and 14 CFR 91.3(a) and were within the federally occupied field of air safety under the FAA.
Appellate Division Reversal
The court held that the claims fall within the field of air safety because they concern the design/operation of the helicopter, particularly as the plaintiff was a co-pilot and identified the helicopter itself as the challenged safety device. It also found conflict preemption: 14 CFR 91.3(a) places sole operational authority/responsibility on the pilot in command, which conflicts with New York’s allocation of nondelegable duties to owners/contractors under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and the broader reasonable-person negligence standard under common law and § 200. Nonetheless, consistent with federal preemption doctrine, the court reinstated the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims by substituting the federal recklessness standard of care under 14 CFR 91.13(a). It affirmed dismissal of the strict-liability claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) as fully preempted. The court declined to follow the Third Department’s contrary approach in Scaletta v Michels Power, Inc., distinguishing it because that plaintiff was not operating or riding in the aircraft and emphasizing that imposing state-law duties on non-aviation contractors would interfere with the federal scheme and risk a patchwork of conflicting state rules.
Legal Significance
In the Second Department, aviation-related workplace injury claims arising from aircraft operation/design are field- and conflict-preempted by the FAA. Plaintiffs may still pursue common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, but only under the substituted federal standard of care in 14 CFR 91.13(a); strict-liability elevation and site-safety claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) are barred. The decision creates an explicit split with the Third Department’s Scaletta ruling and signals that statewide resolution may be needed.
In helicopter-assisted construction or utility work, state strict-liability Labor Law claims are preempted, but negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims can proceed only under the FAA’s federal standard of care, not New York’s traditional standards.