In a recent legal development, JetBlue’s motion to revisit a summary judgement was denied by a federal judge. The lawsuit probes into an incident where a passenger was allegedly injured by a cabin overhead bin that had detached. JetBlue had presented a motion seeking an interpretation of their maintenance procedures that was deemed overly restrictive.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani for the District of Massachusetts rejected JetBlue’s summary judgement motion in September, the decision was based on the view that whether the airliner was negligent in its maintenance actions, given the repeated occurrences with the overhead bin door, is a subject best judged by a jury.
JetBlue’s plea was partly rooted in its belief that it’s exempted from abiding by its own procedures citing the § 121.709(e) authorization in their manual. Their argument, however, did not hold ground as judge Talwani clarified, “JetBlue would have the court interpret § 121.709(e) as exempting JetBlue from following its own procedures. But Federal Aviation Regulations do not negate compliant rules air carriers place on themselves via their maintenance manuals.” Further, C.F.R. § 121.709(b)(1) explicitly requires that aircraft maintenance logs must be prepared in accordance with the carrier’s maintenance manual.
The full judgement sets a critical precedent in ensuring the responsibility of airlines in adhering to their internal procedures. The outcome of this case can potentially impact both industry practices and regulations moving forward.