NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Karim Slate suffered injuries when the Sikorsky helicopter he was piloting crashed. In a previous opinion we reversed the trial court's summary judgment for defendants because defendants failed to establish that plaintiffs' action was barred by the 18 year statute of repose under the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA).1 We concluded our opinion, however, by explaining that GARA could furnish Sikorsky with a "complete defense" to plaintiffs' causes of action "if Sikorsky could show through undisputed evidence that shot peening [the helicopter's input bevel pinion gear] was not a cause of the accident." (Slate I, supra, B197395 at p.9.) On remand the trial court granted Sikorsky's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the undisputed evidence did show "shot peening" the helicopter's input bevel pinion gear did not cause the accident. We affirm.2

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

The following facts are undisputed.

In July 2003, Karim Slate was piloting a Sikorsky S58ET helicopter owned by his employer, Aris Helicopter, Limited. The helicopter crashed, injuring Slate.

Sikorsky built the helicopter for the Navy in 1962. It designed the helicopter's intermediate gearbox and the input bevel pinion gear (IBP) within the gearbox in the 1950's. (Slate I, supra, B197395 at p. 2) Aris purchased the helicopter in 1986.

In 1991, Aris removed the helicopter's intermediate gear box, inspected the components and replaced the IBP. The replacement IBP was built by Fenn Manufacturing. It had been "shot peened" in 1991 or 1992 in accordance with an "Alert Service Bulletin" Sikorsky issued to owners of the S58ET in 1984. The bulletin directs that IBP's with 750 or more hours since the last overhaul be removed and shot peened before being reinstalled.3 It further states that gear boxes containing these "redesigned pinions" are to be overhauled every 2000 flight hours and retired at 6000 flight hours. It is undisputed that the gear failed and the helicopter crashed approximately 1825 hours after the shot peened gear was installed. Sikorsky's postaccident inspection found that "a large section of the [IBP] had fractured in the [gear box]." (Slate I, supra, B197395 at p. 2.) This resulted in a loss of power to the tail rotor blade causing the helicopter to spin and crash.

Slate sued Sikorsky and its parent company, United Technologies Corporation (collectively Sikorsky) on theories of negligence, breach of warranty and strict product liability. He alleged his injuries were caused by Sikorsky's defective design and manufacture of the helicopter including its gearbox. Slate's spouse sued for loss of consortium.

Sikorsky moved for summary judgment. It did not deny that the fractured IBP caused the accident. It argued instead that it could not be held liable for Slate's injuries because it did not "manufacture" the IBP and, even if it did, plaintiffs' causes of action were barred by GARA (49 U.S.C.A. § 40101, Historical & Statutory Notes, pp. 206-207.)4

The trial court granted Sikorsky's summary judgment motion. The court reasoned that GARA provided Sikorsky a complete defense to plaintiffs' causes of action because the undisputed evidence showed that Sikorsky manufactured and delivered the helicopter to its first purchaser 41 years before the accident, that Sikorsky did not build the IBP that caused the crash and plaintiffs could not recover on a theory of design defect because Sikorsky designed the IBP in the 1950's and the 1991 shot peening of the IBP did not restart the 18-year period.

We reversed. The redesign, we held, restarted the 18-year statute of repose, as to the redesign only, on the date the redesigned IBP was first placed in service. We explained that "at trial plaintiffs would be required to show that the redesigned element (the shot peened IBP) caused the accident, but on summary judgment GARA could furnish Sikorsky with a `complete defense' to plaintiffs' causes of action only if Sikorsky could show through undisputed evidence that shot peening the IBP gear was not a cause of the accident or that Slate did not have, and could not acquire, evidence to show that shot peening the IBP was a cause of the accident." (Slate I, supra, B197395 at pp. 8-9.)

After remand, Sikorsky's renewed motion for summary judgment established that the undisputed evidence showed "shot peening" the gear "did not contribute to its fracture at the time of the accident" and there was no evidence that "the shot peening had been done incorrectly."

In response, plaintiffs contended that Sikorsky's negligence lay not in negligently shot peening the gear but in its failure to redesign the entire gear rather than calling only for shot peening.

The trial court granted Sikorsky's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned: "Defendants' expert, Morris, performed a metallurgical exam and concluded that shot peening did not contribute to the accident. There was no evidence of any shot peened area that was missed nor any area which lacked sufficient compressive stresses from the shot peening. . . . Plaintiffs provide no substantive evidence to show that shot peening caused the accident." Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment a defendant must show that the plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action or that the defendant has a complete defense to that claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Only if the defendant meets this burden does the burden shift to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to the cause of action or defense. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)

Sikorsky argues that based on Slate I it is "law of the case" that GARA provides Sikorsky a complete defense to the action if Sikorsky shows through undisputed evidence that shot peening was not the cause of the accident. Sikorsky claims it made this showing. We agree.

Plaintiffs' case fails because even their own experts admit that shot peening did not cause the accident. In their opinions, the gear in Slate's helicopter would have failed whether it was shot peened or not. Their opinion that the existing gear should have been replaced by Sikorsky's newly designed IBP gear, which incorporated improvements in addition to shot peening, is irrelevant. Sikorsky didn't install the gear or select the gear to be installed. In any case, this claim is really a back door attack on Sikorsky's original design of the gear. That gear was designed more than 40 years before the accident and therefore any action based on that design is barred by GARA.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.

MALLANO, P. J. and JOHNSON, J., concurs.