• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Air Law and Commerce >BET ON THE FIELD: WHY FIELD PREEMPTION SHOULD APPLY TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT
【24h】

BET ON THE FIELD: WHY FIELD PREEMPTION SHOULD APPLY TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT

机译：打赌领域：为什么现场抢占应适用于联邦航空法案

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

One of the primary challenges facing the American aviation industry is the issue of federal preemption. Although Congress has a long history of heavy involvement in regulating the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Act (FAAct) does not include an express preemption provision, leaving states, courts, and industry members with little guidance about the proper reach of federal and state regulations. The circuit courts are sharply divided on their approaches and answers to this question. The issue of preemption is especially important in the context of aviation manufacturing, where the federal government has prescribed a litany of different safety standards, but state law product liability claims continue to be governed by state law standards of care. Manufacturers are therefore subjected to a variety of potential requirements across each state, which is problematic for a number of reasons. Exacerbating the issue, the Supreme Court recently declined to hear two cases regarding FAAct preemption, each from a different side of the circuit split. Until this split is resolved, in the interest of uniformity and certainty, undecided circuits should adopt the Second Circuit's field preemption approach and reject the Third Circuit's conflict preemption approach. Field preemption is more consistent with both the intended purpose of the FAAct and the unique nature of the aviation industry. This Comment will analyze the differing approaches taken by the circuit courts and will make the argument that the federal design regulations establish a standard of care which should be integrated into various state law claims. Uniformity is necessary for the aviation industry given its interconnection with interstate commerce and will provide clarity for both manufacturers and courts. Finally, this Comment will explain why and how other circuit courts should adopt the field preemption approach while awaiting Supreme Court guidance.
机译：美国航空业面临的主要挑战之一是联邦抢占的问题。虽然国会历史悠久的繁重参与规范航空行业，但联邦航空法案（FAACT）不包括表达抢先条款，留下国家，法院和行业成员，几乎没有关于联邦和州法规的适当覆盖范围的指导。电路法院大幅分为他们的方法和对这个问题的答案。在航空制造的背景下，抢先的问题尤为重要，联邦政府规定了一连串的不同安全标准，但国家法律产品责任声明继续受国家法律护理标准的管辖。因此，由于多种原因，制造商受到各种州的各种潜在要求，这是有问题的。更加激烈的问题，最高法院最近拒绝听到有关FAAC抢占的两份案件，每个案件来自电路分裂的不同方面。直到这种分裂得到解决，符合统一性和确定性的利益，未定的电路应采用第二次电路的现场抢占方法并拒绝第三巡回冲突抢占方法。现场抢占更符合FAAC的预期目的以及航空业的独特性。该评论将分析电路法院采取的不同方法，并将成为联邦设计规定建立应融入各国法律索赔的护理标准的论点。由于其与州际商务互联，航空工业的统一是必要的，并将为制造商和法院提供清晰度。最后，此评论将解释原因为什么以及其他电路法院应在等待最高法院指导时采用现场抢占方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号