Aviation Liability and Regulatory Risk: Passenger Injury Defenses, Federal Preemption, Compliance & Enforcement

On-Demand · 2 CLE credits · November 11, 2026, 2:30 PM ET

Airline injury claims and regulatory problems are decided by federal law before a jury or agency weighs in. Argue implied and express preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act, test Montreal Convention limits on recovery, and spot DOT, FAA, and TSA compliance risks early.

The Standard of Care in an Airline Case May Not Be State Law at All

Passenger injury claims against an air carrier do not follow the ordinary negligence playbook. Federal preemption can replace the state common law standard of care. The Airline Deregulation Act supplies express preemption arguments. The Montreal Convention can control the claim outright. And the carrier answers to multiple federal regulators, including the Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Plead a state-law standard of care where federal law governs, and the claim may be preempted. Seek emotional distress or punitive damages under the Montreal Convention, and recovery may be barred. File late, and the claim may be untimely. Miss a DOT licensing, fitness, or U.S. citizenship requirement, and regulatory exposure follows. Overlook an FAA certification or TSA security program obligation, and a compliance issue becomes an enforcement matter.

You walk out with practical strategies for presenting implied and express preemption arguments. You gain a working understanding of when the Montreal Convention applies. You get a clear map of the respective roles of DOT, FAA, FCC, and TSA. And you leave with proposed mitigation strategies and best practices for responding effectively when regulators become involved. This is practitioner judgment, not a doctrine summary.

Key topics

Agenda

Faculty

State accreditation