A divided Appellate Division, Third Department, recently held that the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA) does not preempt claims brought under the NYS Labor Law based on a helicopter accident that occurred during a power line repair and construction project. In Scaletta v. Michels Power, Inc.,1 the plaintiff was injured while working for a subcontractor as a helicopter lineman. The plaintiff was performing work on power lines “from a platform attached to the helicopter as it hovered next to the structure.” The helicopter rotor struck the utility tower causing it to crash and seriously injuring the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued in the NYS Supreme Court, alleging that the defendant general contractor was negligent and violated Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6). In response to the complaint, the defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the federal government preempted the field of air safety by the enactment of the FAA and the standards of care imposed by the Labor Law conflicted with those established by federal air safety regulations. The lower court denied the motion, and on appeal, the Third Department affirmed with a 3–2 majority.
Citing authority from various federal courts, the majority found that “state law remedies survive” the enactment of the FAA “and may be pursued within its purview.” The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s Labor Law claims “arise out of the state’s police power to regulate occupational health and safety issues, not aviation.” Relying on the bare allegations in the complaint, the court continued that the plaintiff was not seeking damages based on the operation of the helicopter but for the defendant’s “failure as the general contractor overseeing the work to provide him with adequate safety equipment while he was working outside of the helicopter.” The majority concluded that the plaintiff’s claims “involve standards applicable to all construction workers facing elevation-related hazards in New York and have no obvious connection to the manner in which the helicopter was operated.”
The two dissenting justices rejected the majority’s reasoning and cited a slew of recent cases that were dismissed based on federal preemption “where plaintiffs were injured in helicopter crashes involving work on utility poles.” Looking past the allegations in the complaint, the dissent noted that the facts elucidated during oral argument established that the “accident was inescapably connected to air safety and is thus governed by federal aviation law.” The dissent reasoned that the standard of care required by the FAA and related regulations differed sharply from the Labor Law and meant the plaintiff’s claims were preempted and should be dismissed.
This case illustrates both the expansive view of the Labor Law embraced by New York State courts and the restraints placed on the courts’ ability to delve beyond the pleadings when considering a motion to dismiss.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com, or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
12025 NY Slip Op 00258 (3d Dep’t Jan. 16, 2025).