Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search
Menu

Alert

Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

January 27, 2025

Federal Air Safety Regulations Do Not Preempt NYS Labor Law Claims in Helicopter Crash Case

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). 

Subscribe

Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media

Alerts

New York Public Service Commission Determines to Withdraw Its Finding in the New York City Offshore Wind Public Policy Transmission Need Process

Alerts

A "Sticky" Situation – Can Treatment of Administrative Claims Be Modified in a Subchapter V Plan?

Alerts

Key Affordable-Housing Provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Alerts

What the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Means for Clean-Energy Tax Credits

Alerts

One Big Beautiful Bill Act Changes Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving

Alerts

Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Wislande Claude, Felipe Fernandez, Howard Wilson, Lisa Cantwell, and Erika Alexandria—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits