San Jose Charter Flight Accident Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Charter Flight Accidents at San Jose International Airport

San Jose International Airport (SJC), operated by the City of San Jose, sits at the center of Silicon Valley's corporate aviation market. The technology sector generates a concentration of charter flight activity at SJC that is unlike any other general aviation market in California outside of Los Angeles. Company flight departments, Part 135 on-demand charter operators, fractional ownership programs, and private aircraft owners serving the South Bay tech corridor all operate through SJC. That volume — and the compressed schedules, last-minute dispatch decisions, and high-pressure operating environment that characterize corporate aviation — creates a distinct charter flight liability exposure at San Jose that differs substantially from the commercial airline claims at the same airport.

Attorney Michael Rehm represents people injured in charter flight accidents at San Jose International Airport and throughout Santa Clara County. Charter flight accidents at SJC span Part 135 air carrier failures, corporate flight department negligence, charter broker misrepresentation, and aircraft maintenance defects — each with its own legal framework and its own set of responsible parties.

The Silicon Valley Charter Market and Its Liability Implications

The operational profile of San Jose's charter and corporate aviation market shapes its liability landscape. Flights are frequently dispatched on short notice into marginal weather conditions, with passengers who are accustomed to on-demand availability and who may not appreciate the risks involved in accelerated departure decisions. Corporate flight departments operating under Part 91 are not commercial air carriers and do not face the same regulatory scrutiny as Part 135 operators — but they owe the same duty of ordinary care under Civil Code § 1714 to every person aboard. The distinction between Part 91 and Part 135 matters enormously to liability analysis: it determines what duty applies, what regulatory violations are actionable, and who bears responsibility for the flight decision.

Part 135 Charter Operator Liability

An operator holding a Part 135 air carrier certificate and conducting charter flights for compensation is a common carrier under Public Utilities Code § 2100. California law holds common carriers to the utmost care and diligence for the safe carriage of passengers under Public Utilities Code § 2101 — the highest duty of care recognized in California tort law. Ordinary negligence by a Part 135 charter operator that causes a passenger injury is sufficient for liability. There is no requirement to prove recklessness or gross negligence.

Under 14 C.F.R. Part 135, a certificated charter operator bears responsibility for aircraft airworthiness, pilot qualification and training, crew rest and duty time compliance, dispatch into appropriate weather conditions, and weight and balance calculations. A failure in any of these areas that contributes to a passenger injury is a breach of both the federal regulatory standard and the California common carrier duty. The operator cannot disclaim responsibility by pointing to an individual pilot's decision — the operator exercised operational control over the flight and bears the consequences of that control.

Maintenance Obligations Under Part 135

Part 135 operators are required to maintain their aircraft under an approved continuous airworthiness maintenance program under 14 C.F.R. Part 135, Subpart J. The maintenance standard is more rigorous than what applies to private aircraft under Part 91. An engine failure, hydraulic malfunction, or avionics failure on a charter flight raises immediate questions about the operator's maintenance program — whether the defect was detectable on inspection, whether the maintenance schedule was followed, and whether the mechanic who signed off the aircraft applied the required standard of care. 14 C.F.R. Part 43 governs the mechanics performing the work. Both the operator and the maintenance provider bear potential liability when a maintenance failure causes injury.

Pilot Training and Qualification

Part 135 pilots must meet specific experience, training, proficiency, and rest requirements under 14 C.F.R. Part 135, Subpart E. An operator that places a pilot in command who has not completed required training, who has exceeded duty time limits, or who is not current in the specific aircraft type being flown has breached the regulatory standard. When pilot error causes a charter flight accident, the operator's training records, proficiency check documentation, and duty time logs are among the first items of discovery.

Corporate Flight Department Liability Under Part 91

Silicon Valley company flight departments frequently operate under Part 91 rather than Part 135, transporting company personnel in company-owned aircraft without compensation. Part 91 operations are not subject to the commercial air carrier regulations — but the pilots and the company still owe a duty of ordinary care to every person aboard under Civil Code § 1714. A company that operates an aircraft with a known maintenance issue, that schedules a flight into conditions beyond the crew's qualifications, or that pressures pilots to depart under unsafe conditions bears direct liability for a resulting accident. In the Silicon Valley corporate culture, pilot pressure — the expectation that the plane will go regardless of conditions — is a documented risk factor in corporate aviation accidents. That pressure, and who created it, is directly relevant to liability.

Charter Broker Liability

A significant share of charter flights booked in the Bay Area market originate with brokers who do not hold air carrier certificates and do not operate aircraft. A charter broker sells the flight, collects a commission, and arranges for a certificated operator to conduct the flight. The broker's liability exposure depends on what representations the broker made and whether the broker conducted reasonable due diligence on the operator it selected. A broker that represents to a customer that a flight will be conducted safely by a vetted operator, without verifying that operator's certificate status, accident history, or maintenance record, may bear liability under negligent misrepresentation when the operator's failures cause an accident.

Aircraft Manufacturer Product Liability

The San Jose charter fleet consists primarily of light jets, turboprops, and twin-engine piston aircraft. When a mechanical failure traceable to a design defect, manufacturing error, or inadequate flight manual warning causes an accident, the manufacturer bears potential strict product liability under California law. Manufacturers of general aviation aircraft older than eighteen years may assert the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) as a defense, but GARA provides a statutory exception for aircraft used in commercial operations. A Part 135 charter aircraft that has been flown for compensation throughout its life may fall within the commercial service exception. Whether GARA applies and whether the commercial service exception or another exception defeats the defense requires case-specific analysis.

City of San Jose as Airport Operator

San Jose International Airport is operated by the City of San Jose, a public entity. Claims against the City for dangerous conditions at the airport — including runway conditions, taxiway lighting, signage, obstacle management, and ramp safety — are governed by Government Code § 835. The City is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees under Government Code § 815.2. Claims against the City of San Jose require a government tort claim under Government Code § 911.2 within six months of the incident. Missing this deadline can potentially bar a lawsuit against the City. Tolling may apply — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Air Traffic Control at San Jose International

San Jose International is a federally towered airport. ATC services are provided by FAA employees. Claims for ATC errors that contribute to a charter accident at SJC are brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)) against the United States. An administrative claim must be filed with the FAA within two years of the accident under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The government may assert the discretionary function exception for policy-level decisions, but failures to follow mandatory ATC separation and sequencing procedures are not protected by that exception.

Filing Deadlines for San Jose Charter Flight Claims

The general personal injury statute of limitations is two years under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Claims against the City of San Jose require a government tort claim within six months under Government Code § 911.2 — a shorter, independent deadline that runs parallel to the two-year period. FTCA claims against the federal government for ATC error require an administrative claim within two years. None of these deadlines are self-executing, and tolling may apply depending on the facts. Whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling requires individual analysis.

Attorney Michael Rehm represents charter flight accident victims at San Jose International Airport and throughout California on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 to arrange a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.