In Rogers v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., No. C061943, the Third District faced a challenge to the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion in limine to exclude certain evidence and a subsequent grant of defendant’s motion for a nonsuit in plaintiff’s suit against a manufacturer of the helicopter she was piloting at the time of her crash. 

In reversing the decision, the court held that the grant of defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence that the maintenance manual was defective and caused the accident was in error as the maintenance manual here was not a part of the helicopter for purposes of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994.

  • Full text of Rogers v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc [HTML]
  • Full text of Rogers v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. [PDF]

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules