Legal issues including liability associated with the acquisition, use, and failure of GPS/GNSS

Journal of Navigation

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 246-251

  Michael, Gregory E ^a  

^a Strat Aviat Consult Advisors L ^*

Author keywords

GPS GNSS; Law

Indexed keywords

EID: 0006111620     PISSN: 03734633     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0373463399008309     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. FAA. (1998). 'Lurking concerns about deliberate or natural interference with radionavigational signals from the Global Positioning System (GPS) is causing a major change of thinking at the Federal Aviation Administration.' Inside FAA, Vol. 2, No. 3 (February 6, 1998). 'There surely is a perception that GPS, even with WAAS, is not as bulletproof as they had envisioned it to be, and the architecture is not as robust as they thought it would be.' Id.
2. Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Security Council, U.S. Global Positioning System Policy, March 29, 1996.
3. Telematics Project (TR1027), Siemans Plessey Systems. GNSS1 will constitute a quasi-civil satellite navigation system. In the future, GNSS2 is intended as a completely civilian controlled satellite navigation system.
4. 28 U.S.C.A. (1988). §§1346(b) et. seq.
5. 28 U.S.C.A. §2680(a).
6. 373 F.2d 227 (2d Cir.) Cert. Denied, 389 U.S. 931 (1967).
7. Telephone interview with Andrew J. Dilk, Esquire, Manager, Accident Counsel Branch, FAA, July 1998. There is one U.S. reported GPS case, Connaghan v. Maxus Exploration Co., 5 F. 3d 1363 (10th Cir 1993) which involves survey mapping using GPS. Recovery was denied.
8. The Military Claims Act, infra, Note 20, specifically references this legal rule.
9. 28 U.S.C.A. §2680(k).
10. Spradling, Kevin K. (1990). The international liability ramifications of the U.S. NAVSTAR Global Positioning System. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, 93.
11. 399 F. Supp 732 (Cal. 1975). In Paris, the plane crash occurred in France. This did not bar suit in the United States because the wrongful Act was alleged to be approval of a Certificate of Inspection in California.
12. 28 U.S.C.A. §2680(j).
13. Aviation Week & Space Technology, January 3, 1994, at Page 32; See, Note 3, supra. Transportation, Defense Departments reach accord on GPS use. Query: Is it not reasonable to assume that the United States military could develop a system to jam or interfere with the 'civilian' GNSS signals if national security is at stake?
14. 46 U.S.C.A. §§741-752 (1988).
15. 497 U.S. 358 (1990).
16. Miller v. United States, 725 F. 2d 1311 (11th cir. 1984), Cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 (1984).
17. Drake Towing Co., Inc. v. Meisner Marine Construction Co., 765 F. 2d 1060 (C.A. 11 ALA 1985).
18. Indian Towing Company v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955).
19. 10 U.S.C.A. §2734 (1996).
20. 10 U.S.C.A. §2733 (1996).
21. Claims under both Acts are currently limited to $100,000 unless special government approval is obtained.
22. Epstein, Jonathan M. (1995). Global Positioning System (GPS); defining the legal issues of its expanding civil use, 61 Journal of Law and Air Commerce, 243 at 268 (Sept.-Oct. 1995).
23. 18 U.S.T. 2410 (1967).
24. Id, Article VI.
25. 24 U.S.T. 2391 (1972).
26. Id, Article II.
27. Claims were made as a result of the disintegration of the Cosmos satellite which blanketed a large area of Northern Canada with radioactive particles.
28. Spradling, supra, Note 98.
29. Larsen, Paul D. (1993). Legal liability for Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, 69.
30. Spradling, supra at 99.
31. Congressional concerns about WAAS may impact its future funding and implementation. A recent Senate Bill restricts the use of funds for WAAS until both the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator certify that: (1) WAAS is a sole means of navigation; (2) signal continuity issues have been solved; and (3) the WAAS cost/benefit ratio exceeds that of other landing and navigation aids. Aviation International News, Vol. 30, No. 14, Page 1 (September 1, 1998).
32. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 377 P. 2d 897 (1963).
33. Martin v. Julius Dierck Equipment Co., 374 N.E. 2d 97 (1978); See also, Uniform Commercial Code §2-318.
34. AETNA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Jeppesen Sanderson Co., 642 F.2d 339 (1981).
35. FAA Incident Summary, New England Region, January 30, 1998; See also, Note 1, supra.
36. These rules are: (1) The Defendant owes a duty to the injured party; (2) the Defendant breached that duty ; and the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages. Along with traditional theories of negligence is the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur ('the act speaks for itself'). Briefly stated, this doctrine provides that where an instrumentality involved in an accident is within the exclusive control of the defendant and where the accident is one which would ordinarily not have happened in the absence of negligence, then it may be inferred from the mere happening of the accident that the defendant was negligent. Res Ipsa Loquitur has been described as nothing more, and nothing less, than 'a common sense appraisal of the probative value of circumstantial evidence'. See, Foltis, Inc. v City of New York 38 N.E. 2d 455 (1944); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Rowe, 226 Fed. 2d 365 (8th Cir 1955).
37. 28 U.S.C.A. §1330 (1988); See also, Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, 885 F.2d 285 (1989).
38. John M. Beukers, Administrative Procedures & Agreements Governing Global Radionavigation.