Liability release and selling an RV

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I would be interested in any comments or experiences related to the liability a builder incurs as the manufacturer when he sells his airplane.

I was originally planning to build. Then to buy. Still looking and planes for sale but now reconsidering building cause it's so hard to find just the right airplane among other things.

This liability issue has been one big sticking point for me since the beginning.
I just have this concern about always looking over my shoulder should I ever sell a plane that I've manufactured. I suppose you could only sell to a single person with no living relatives.....but then he might sell it to a reckless father of five, two of whom are lawyers. Obviously people sell planes all the time though. I remember one guy suggesting sawing your plane in two after your done with it. Who could really do that!

Steve

Classic question. I'll be one of many reading the replies with interest. These things change hands every day just about and some here must have dealt with this very real concern.

I don't remember where I got this information, but it is my understanding that there have been no successful suits brought against a homebuilder for defects of manufacture. Anyone else read or hear that one??? Please tell me I wasn't dreaming!

I suppose that if you were really concerned about liability, perhaps you could remove the engine from the aircraft you are selling and sell it as unairworthy airplane parts. Get it to a point where it would have to earn a new airworthyness cerificate. Just a thought.


Regards,

I signed a "hold harmless agreement" when I purchased my RV-6. I have an extensive mechanical and technical background. I can take full responsiblity for assessing the mechanical condition and quality of construction of the airplane. Anyone who feels they cannot accept that responsibility probably should not be considering purchasing a homebuilt airplane. Nothing about my RV-6 was misrepresented in any way. I purchased it "as is". If I screw up and wreck the airplane, why should the seller be liable? That idea is ludicrous.

liability as manufacturer

I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the General Aviation Revitalization Act provide that the manufacturer will no longer be held liable 15 years after the date of manufacture?

The point made regarding disassembling the aircraft and selling it as parts seems a good one, except that it might decrease the re-sale value a bit (okay, a lot).

One would think that the 2-inch tall letters spelling E-X-P-E-R-I-M-E-N-T-A-L would be enough to dissuade a law suit. Would the general public reward anyone silly enough to buy, fly, and crash an EXPERIMENTAL airplane?

Mark Andrews N598X
(can't imagine parting with my RV)

When I sold my SeaRey, I stipulated that the plane was amatuer built and no assurances, warrantees, or guarantees were included. Still made me a little nervous until the new owner did a gear up landing on a hard surface runway. He had to replace the hull and had a whole lot of other work done after that. Since that I figure he effectively remanufactured the plane. Plus two annuals since then.

Roberta

I've built and sold two previous homebuilt airplanes, and I'll probably sell my Rocket at some point in the future. I paid an attorney to draft a sales agreement with all the proper clauses. I gave him printouts from the EAA web site on how to draft a sales contract. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the concern is not losing a lawsuit, but not going to court in the fist place.

As a pervious poster stated, no one has "successfully" won a liability lawsuit against the builder of an experimental airplane. However, what you want the contract to do is keep you from going to court in the first place. The contract should be so tight that if a buyer (or the buyer's family in all likelihood) contacts a lawyer and they read the contract, their reaction is "There's no way we're going to win anything!", or something to that effect.

In short, just get a good contract lawyer, pay him/her a couple of hundred bucks to put a contract together, and sleep like a baby. You will probably have some prospective buyers back away from the contract once they read it. I did. I just told them "No deal. You want the airplane you MUST sign this contract."

While the article linked below was written back in 1999, it appears to offer a lot that's still relevant today.

http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181900-1.html

As far as I know, everything about this subject is just opinion until there is a real test in court, specifically with relevance to us builders.
We won't know where we builders stand until an actual case where a homebuilder has made a mistake in construction later causes serious harm to a subsequent owner. And I'm not talking about peripheral responsiblity like with the John Denver fuel selector issue, but a problem that can attributed ONLY to the building.

If a builder is ever found liable in a case like that, even after getting a release (Exculpatory Agreement) signed by the new owner etc. etc., then Experimental builders will have to go into a project knowing that when they're "through with it", that they will dismantle it and sell off the parts.
That would be quite a hit because at least for now, we Van's Aircraft owners can usually count on at least getting our money out of them.

The one thing that stands out for me on this issue is the final inspection made either by a DAR or FAA employee. I will personally cajole that person during my inspection to be as thorough as possible. I've read where some builders have the attitude that you shouldn't offer any information you're not asked about and hope the inspector doesn't look too closely for fear something will be found that might require a rework. However, it is exactly those things that we may not be absolutely sure of that we should point out to the inspector and take notes on what he says about it.

Don't anyone put too much credibility on what I say about this, however, because I'm not a lawyer; I just play one in this thread.

http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181900-1.html

I was just about to post a link to that same article. I believe that GARA should apply after 18 years. There also is a distinction between the manufacturer and the assembler which is very important. Many of you list yourselves as the manufacturer of the plane when registering the plane. I'm not arguing one way or another, but for this discussion, I think it's clear that doing so could be a liability for you builders. I believe that the courts would, in general, hold that Van's is the manufacturer and you all are the assembler despite how you register it, but who knows. If you have told the government that you are the manufacturer, the court may take your word for it.

However, there still may be some manufacturer's liability for you builders even if you've listed Van's as the kit manufacturer on the registration. If you build the plane to the exact standards in the plans, there is really no liability for you (the owner) as the manufacturer. But, if you failed to torque this or that bolt properly there certainly is some liability as the assembler, but it's pretty slight especially if you successfully flew the plane without incident for a significant period of time. If you decide to deviate from the plans, I believe that you would be accepting that manufacturers liability for that portion of the plane which you altered (and perhaps for the entire plane since some alterations could alter nearly everything regarding stresses, etc to the plane.) More on this below.

My recommendation to anyone who sells any plane (and those who buy one) is that they should have the pre-buy be a full annual of the plane by an independant A+P. This is good for the seller in that an an independant set of eyes has looked at the plane and declared it airworthy for another year. It's good for the buyer because that A+P might find some things that perhaps the buyer wants to have fixed prior to the purchase. I know it's more expensive to do this, and finding an A+P willing to do it may be difficult for an RV. I'd still recommend trying. Everyone is better off.

There is a period of time after selling even a production aircraft in which the buyer might come back and sue the seller for poor maintenance or whatever that may have led to damage to the plane, others property, and bodily injury. The more time the buyer has the plane, the more maintenance they do on it, etc... the less that exposure becomes for the seller.

Some insurance policies do extend coverage for "Liability for the Sale of the aircraft." this coverage extends beyond the end date or date you cancel the policy. AIG and AVEMCO are the only two that I'm aware of that do so. Read your policy to see what it covers and for how long. This coverage, IMHO, was placed on these policies to cover that liability which one has for maintaining a plane they own. I don't believe it was designed to protect one from liabilities incurred as the manufacturer or assembler of the plane. But, as those coverages are currently written, I think those companies would have a hard time NOT defending you or covering a successful lawsuit against you for such an occurrence. I believe that if such suits were to become common, those companies which do currently offer that type of coverage, would re-write their policies to define that coverage better to exclude coverage for manufacturing/assembly defects.

As was stated earlier in this thread, while there hasn't been a successful suit of this kind, the real threat is of the lawsuit itself. Hiring a lawyer to defend oneself can get expensive. The "Liability for sale of the aircraft" coverage, if it is on your policy and in force, would pay for your legal defense, and offer (normally) the limits of the policy (normally $1 Million).

Forgot to add that I think "parting it out" only spreads around your liability. Even though it's no longer a plane. Unless you melted it down and sold it as a block of aluminum, I don't believe you are gaining anything. If you built the wings, and sold them seperately, then that individual could sue you over wing problems, and so on....

JT

What ever happened to the idea of each of us taking responsiblity for our own decisions. When I buy something, I decide whether it's a good value or not. This whole discussion makes me crazy. I don't live in fear of lawsuits and refuse to do so. My life never came with guarantees that I would never make a bad decision. My decisions are my responsibilty. If I make a bad one, I loose, and hopefully learn from it. If someone were to willfully cheat or unjustly take advantage of me, he would deal with me, not a lawyer. He would wish he hadn't done it.

I agree.

However, it isn't just two people involved in the transaction. You're selling that plane to an individual. But that person (the buyer) may have a spouse, children, etc that could be upset if the buyer were killed while using the plane he just bought from you. I've seen too many people casually handle lots of transactions because it was with a friend. If the friend dies, you may be left dealing with his wife/kids that aren't as friendly.

I certainly don't advocate suing someone just because the plane crashed, but if it actually structurally failed, or the engine quit due to poor maintenance, etc I can understand it. The question becomes was it manufactured incorrectly by Van's (doubltful, and hard to prove with so many successfully flying), or assembled incorrectly by you (the builder), or was it flown outside of it's capabilities by the new owner.

Also, of course, the buyer could also have a passenger in the plane killed bringing a whole new group of plaintiffs to the table. And those people also likely won't have any loyalties to you.

I don't believe there is any way to bring a person back. Nor do I believe there is any better way to protect yourself than as I described. Build the plane to specs, insure it with a company that provides "liability for the sale of the aircraft" (so that at least you have some coverage for a short time and primarily against the poor maintenance issue), get a annual done by a third party as the pre-buy, and as someone else suggested - get a lawyer to draw up the sale agreement including some "no warranty" and other appropriate wording.

It is just the environment we live in today. It is out of hand, but until it changes, I don't see any other way to deal with those liability issues. If you think it's bad, consider that there are insurance companies that insure lawyers for malpractice coverages. Unhappy with the outcome of your case... sue your lawyer... THAT is absurd!

JT

Thank you all for a really excellent discussion on this issue.

I think there are some great suggestions above which will help me frame the risks and protect myself as well as possible should I go the building route.



Steve

jthav8r said:

If you think it's bad, consider that there are insurance companies that insure lawyers for malpractice coverages. Unhappy with the outcome of your case... sue your lawyer... THAT is absurd!JT

Click to expand...

Why? If I can be found negligent because I assembled an airplane incorrectly why can't a lawyer be found negligent for not handling a case properly? Seems like what's good for the Goose yada-yada-yada.

Regarding previous posts, I put clauses in my sales contract that REQUIRED the buyer to have an AP inspect the airplane before it was purchased. It's clear in my contract that the buyer has every opportunity to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft before it is purchased. I think the AVWEB article is a good one, but it's one guys opinion. I think he makes it sound like a larger problem than what it really is. I have two lawyers in the family and one has a significant product liability practice. He's of the opinion that it would be a very, very tough sell to a jury just due to the fact that it says "EXPERIMENTAL" right on the airplane. You'd have to purposely deceive the buyer of significant defects in order to even get a toehold on a lawsuit and even with that, you'd still have a hard time winning.

That's not to say that some lawyer wouldn't haul you into court anyway, but I think if you're a regular person selling your pride and joy that you built with great care to the best of your ability, and you have a decent sales contract, your chances of a lawsuit are relatively slim. You probably have a greater chance of your pizza delivery person filing for slipping on your ice-covered sidewalk. (Except for all you posters that live where it doesn't get cold!)

Sorry if this post shows up twice. My computer doesn't seem to be cooperating.

Just a thought, but since liability is such a concern, has anyone looked into forming a legal corporation to build under? I would assume that, just like any other business, you could create a corporate identity that would own and build the plane (you would essentially be an employee). The beauty of a corporation is that should someone decide to sue the builder of the plane, they cannot go after your personal assets, only whatever the corporation has. The only thing that you have to work around is how to disburse the funds from the sale of the plane so that it doesn't stay in the corporation. Just like any company, you should be able to receive those funds as the owner of the company.

This is just an idea. I don't know if it can be done in a case like this or not. Any lawyer could tell you though (I'm definitely no lawyer). My business is set up as a professional corporation for this very reason - it shields my personal assets should someone get the idea to sue for some reason.

Anybody have more knowledge about doing something like this? I will definitely look into the possibility before beginning to build.

Legal aspects of selling your RV or flying Paxs

Here is a snip from a legal web site ref below. I posted this before on the topic of giving rides in your RV:

?Bolierplate? exemptions - from a www site link below:

Don't Expect (cookie cutter) "Boilerplate" Disclaimers to (always) Work

It is important to understand that if anyone hopes to successfully use an exculpatory agreement to cut off a serious injury or death claim, it must be carefully drafted by an attorney knowledgeable in this area and should be customized for the particular operation involved. Thus, "cookie cutter" form agreements that one pilot has copied from another pilot, who got it from a friend, after it was prepared by a lawyer for a different circumstance, are not likely to be honored by the courts. Anyone who uses "personal injury and death disclaimer" should anticipate that a plaintiff's attorney will scrutinize the document and the circumstances in which it was used to argue that the victim didn't understand what he was giving up. Trial courts and appellate courts will scrutinize the "disclaimer" before enforcing such agreements because it may mean dismissing somebody's million-dollar wrongful-death suit.

There is no guarantee that an exculpatory agreement would be upheld by any particular court; however, there is in incidental benefit to using such exculpatory agreements between sellers and buyers and between pilot owners and passengers. An attorney who takes on the case of a victim against a homebuilder or a pilot must seriously consider the risk that the exculpatory agreement will be enforced by the court and that the case will be thrown out. Thus, a lack of substantial assets coupled with the existence of a well-written exculpatory agreement may mean the difference between a lawsuit and no lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit is filed, the case may be settled on much more negotiable terms if the defense lawyer has the ability to assert the exculpatory agreement against the plaintiff's claims.

I believe that exculpatory agreements are an ideal tool for the sellers of homebuilt aircraft to use with buyers and for the operators of homebuilt aircraft to use with passengers. Why shouldn't people be able to give up their right to sue if they knowingly and voluntarily assume a recreational risk?

PS: Here is a good aviaton legal site:
http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/liabhomeblt.html

Cheers George

I asked most of the same questions to my wife's employers, Lawyers.
They told me that the first thing they will do is look at the potential defendants net worth. Then they divide that number by 3. If they don't think that number is enough to take the case, they won't. They told me the lifespan of a typical case is 5 years. The costs involved over 5 years can be substantial. This is money they have to put out until the case is resolved. If they lose, they are out that money, since most liability cases are on contingency. To the best of their knowledge (researced), no individual has ever been sued over a homebuilt aircraft crash.

I don't intend to worry about it.

Greg Piney
RV-8 Gonnabe (Fall 2005)

product liability

Having built a Glastar and currently building an RV10 I have researched the lia bility problem. It may be dependent upon your state of residence but some things can be done to mitigate the problem. First the IRA monies cannot be assigned or attached; other assets can be transferred in ownership to family limited partnerships which can be sued but can not be forced to liquidate for sometime. For example mine can be sued and a judgement will result in a "charging order against the partnership which will be paid out of the remainder when the partnership terminates in 2103. (Lawyers tend to get discouraged when the payout comes after their lifetime). Items that cannot be efficiently transfered to the partnerships can be liened to the partnership. For example a separate Limited Liability Corportion (LLC) can own the homebuilt. To make sure that the LLC has no assets you can file an aircraft lien (to the partnership) with the FAA so that an accident in your homebuilt will not have "even the hull insurance" available to a plaintiff in the LLC. If all else fails there is always the "shotguns at 20 paces" solution. Just be sure to include the plaintiffs lawyer in your threesome.

I am not trying to give anyone legal advice ; Just making the point to protect oneself and family. Remember that many accidents happen due to the lack of proficiency and/or stupidity of the purchaser. One case I know well. A taylorcraft homebuilt passed through three owners before the fourth killed his flight instructor on takeoff. Because the aircraft was used for aerobatics it had a header tank and flop tube pickup for limited inverted flight. Although hours of dual were given for the fourth owner to checkout and the header tank emphasized, after a few months lapsed fourth owner and his flight instructor took off on one of his signature high angle climbs with the main fuel selector off.

Fiy aman Allah.

You Cannot Avoid Responsibility

If there is an accident and the cause is attributed to negligence of you the builder the injured party they or their survivors have a cause of action against you and they can sue. If it is arguable that a latent defect that you built into the airplane that could not have been detected by the buyer caused the death of a buyer it is not realistic to expect exemption from responsibility regardless of presale agreements. There are many legal jurisdictions and bodies of law and you will almost always be hanging in the wind for someone to take a jab at you within one of them if you build a plane and sell it to someone. Even if you are protected by a contract or statute of limitations the "innocent injured party" can file suit. The greatest protection most builders have is they don't have anything worth suing for. Cases that are not appealed are not precedent setting they never make it into a "Great Database of all Law Suits Big and Small" and making a statement that there has never been a successful suit against a homebuilt airplane builder is not proveable and should arouse disbelief. Long ago I remember reading a statement that there had never been a successful lawsuit against Burt Rutan's company. That should not be extrapolated to everyone who has ever built and sold an airplane and even if none were won by the plaintiff there were law suits. If the situation makes you lose sleep you probably should not build and sell and airplane. From my own perspective buying one that someone else built with no expert evaluated system design (no I'm not talking about a lines of rivets holding sheet metal together, I'm talking about the systems that the manuals say are left up to the builder and are beyond the scope of the kit suppliers documents), no implementation controls over materials, sources, workmanship, integration, test and maintenance is a MUCH GREATER and very REAL RISK. Now if you want to buy a pristene RV-6A for $1,000,000 I'll sell you mine with a FAA bill of sale and a clear conscience. We don't have to worry about meaningless paper.

Bob Axsom

Bob Axsom said:

.... If it is arguable that a latent defect that you built into the airplane that could not have been detected by the buyer caused the death of a buyer it is not realistic to expect exemption from responsibility regardless of presale agreements....
Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

You may be on to something here and we should simply write the sales contract pointing out the fact that each of our planes have some 17,000 rivet holes, each of which is a "latent defect" , having fatigue crack initiation sites.
Some of these are in critical load areas and will fail eventually in a catastrophic manner, given enough flight hours. However, we do not expect failure before X flight hours have occurred as long as the aircraft is loaded under the conditions of design load or less.
It is not possible, though, to guarantee a single, successful flight that will be structural failure-free and the buyer must acknowledge this fact before purchase!

Perhaps this quite accurate statement might help to deter a court appearance.

Or not.
No one is responsible for himself anymore.

-Mike

Liability Release Form?

Liability? Appears we can only get 100,000. coverage for a passanger in our RV's and you know it doesn't take much to go over that at the hospital or in the court room.
My regular insurance umbrella won't cover my flying activities.

EAA has a million dollar insurance policy for when I'm taking a young eagle up on a documented flight and the young person qualifies for the program. When I take a regular person over the age of 17 up for a flight, I only have 100,000 of coverage.

AOPA has a Liability Release Form-SAMPLE on their website and I took it and modified it...not the legal language, but added names and the "Passenger warning" wording form the placard on the panel of the plane.
What do you guys think of the idea of getting passangers to sign this before going along for a ride?
Anybody already doing this? or would I be a first?
I've spoke to some guys that just don't take people up for this reason.
I do carry insurance, and I love to share the fun of flight.
I understand this may not completely stand up in court, but it sure couldn't hurt any and it might make someone on the fence, not take a ride and I'd rather know how they are thinking before a flight, than after.
Your thoughts?
Bob Martin RV-6
Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liability Release
IN CONSIDERATION of my anticipated flight(s), I agree, intending to be legally bound hereby, that :
BOB MARTIN or IRVING JONES or LARRY BURRUSS__
(Pilot and/or Operator and/or Owner) shall not be liable for my death or injury to my person, or for any loss for damage to my property caused in any manner whatsoever, whether attributable to the negligence of the aforesaid pilot and/or operator and/or owner, or for any other reason, occurring during the time that I am in, entering or alighting from an aircraft piloted by or under the control of or owned by the aforesaid pilot and/or operator and/or owner, and I do hereby waive any right of action against the aforesaid pilot and/or operator and/or owner from any and all causes or claims that I may have against them from the beginning of the time until these presents. I further agree not to sue on any such cause or claim.

The Aircraft is an RV-6, Built as an EXPERIMENTAL Category Aircraft and carries this warning posted on the instrument panel:

PASSENGER WARNING
This aircraft is AMATEUR BUILT and DOES NOT comply with the FEDERAL SAFETY regulations for Standard Category Aircraft.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and seal the below written date.
______________________________
(Name printed in block letters)
Date__________________
______________________________
(Signature)

In the presence of:
__________________________
(Witness)

Directions
Before approaching the aircraft, each person going aloft should sign a separate copy of this agreement, and if such person be a minor it would be better if either or both parents signed as well. The witnesses should sign and the date be written where shown and the document left with reliable people on the ground.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Release form

I'm not sure it would work in the US, but what we do here is issue an ICAO standard passenger ticket. Then, if something happens, there seems to be some kind of international limits on liability. I really don't have much more detail, but I could get a copy of a ticket and scan it in.

Probably the first people to talk to about this would be your insurance company. Let us know what you find.

Besides the legal problems associated with having someone waive their right to sue, the big problem is not the person signing the form, but everywhere else. The guys wife, kids, insurance company etc. would not be covered by any waiver he signs.

Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee

I just hate that we have come to this point. DAMN attorneys!

That said, issuing a ticket here in the US might bring on a hole list of other problems if you injured someone. Like, are you a part 135 operator? Scheduled airline? (Part 119 I think?), etc.

I'm not sure such a waiver will really offer you much financial protection. Besides, isn't the reason why we have the "EXPERIMENTAL" and warning placard on these things to warn perspective passengers that they are putting their life in the hands of the guy who had the tool in his hand?

I'm not an attorney but I dated one once so base your reliance on this "legal" advice on the price you paid for it.

1) "I just hate that we have come to this point. DAMN attorneys!"
Never mind ranting about the lawyers, how about the triple stupid juries?

2) That liability paper is worthless, legally speaking (and I'm no lawyer).

3) This duck-n-cover activity generated by two generations of law suit-crazed Americans is exactly why I fly no one except my immediate family members.

It was not always this way, for I was once a CAP Group Commander with over seventy active cadets. That, my dear friends, is history.

I have seen the law suit tiger up close and personal... never again.

Lawyers, Insurance and personal willingness to take a risk

If someone gets in my plane for a flight it is my responsibility to get them back safely. If I don't that bothers me a lot more than cash exposure. Lawyers and insurance people are just doing a job and trying to establish the higest standard of living they can for their families and loved ones. Some are brilliant and have excellent character and some are creepy low life scum but they are all just part of the environment we live in - no better and no worse than all of the other parts. If you are not willing to be held accountable for everything that can happen to a passenger in a flight, don't fly any passengers. After all, would it make you feel any better if a passenger were injured or killed and someone would throw $1M at your guilt instead of $100K? Flying is a risky activity and the best way to prevent you or your family's financial exposure is to stop flying.

I made my first 5 hours of flight in my RV-6A with no insurance because the restrictions and cost were rediculous and I decided to accept the exposure of myself and my wife to financial ruin if I or my plane failed. It's a personal choice but I don't think we can tiptoe around responsibility and blame everything on lawyers and insurance salesmen - WE PUT THEM IN THE LEFT FRONT SEAT WITH OUR SUPER CAUTIOUS (dare I say fear?) ATTITUDE - and we will never get them out of there by shame or asking their permission.

Bob Axsom

Responsibility for everything?

Bob Axsom said:

If you are not willing to be held accountable for everything that can happen to a passenger in a flight, don't fly any passengers.

---snip---

It's a personal choice but I don't think we can tiptoe around responsibility and blame everything on lawyers and insurance salesmen - WE PUT THEM IN THE LEFT FRONT SEAT WITH OUR SUPER CAUTIOUS (dare I say fear?) ATTITUDE - and we will never get them out of there by shame or asking their permission.

Click to expand...

I don't think most pilots try to tiptoe around responsibility. I believe it's a little unrealistic to hold the pilot accountable for "everything" that can happen in a flight. A passenger has to assume some amount of risk/responsibility in an inherently dangerous activity whether in an experimental plane or otherwise.

One example that comes to mind would be a bird strike. Short of deliberately flying into a flock of birds, a pilot has very little control over where birds fly. If a bird strike occurs and the passenger is seriously injured or killed is that justification for subjecting the pilot to financial ruin?

What if the passenger had no health/life insurance, you might ask? This is something a lawyer would certainly use for emotional impact in a lawsuit. Isn't that the passengers "personal choice" and acceptance of risk in participating in a dangerous activity without such coverage?

I also don't think we're trying to blame everything on lawyers. Yes, they are just trying to make a living like everyone else, but some of us just question their motives and justification for their typically large share of a settlement.

Here is a question for everyone. I am not a lawyer, or have I ever been sued (yet, knock on wood), but doesn't it have to be proven that the PIC/builder/operator/equipment mfr/etc. was negligent to be found guilty/liable? If that is the case (and I don't know if it is, hence my question), then Bob Axsom is right on the money. The pilot in command IS responsible for everything that happens in the aircraft within his control, and therefore should be held responsible in that line of thought. In the case of the birdstrike, I would have to assume that is something outside his control, but how he handled the aircraft after that strike he would still be responsible for execution of the emergency.

flymustangs said:

One example that comes to mind would be a bird strike. Short of deliberately flying into a flock of birds, a pilot has very little control over where birds fly. If a bird strike occurs and the passenger is seriously injured or killed is that justification for subjecting the pilot to financial ruin?

Click to expand...

jimrobinette said:

but doesn't it have to be proven that the PIC/builder/operator/equipment mfr/etc. was negligent to be found guilty/liable?

Click to expand...

Does one have to be proven negligent or guilty to be legally liable? Perhaps. Does one have to be proven guilty to end up paying? Absolutely not. In most cases, guilt does not have to be proven and does not necessarily have anything to do with monetary liability you might end up assuming because the vast majority of lawsuits never go to trial but are settled out of court. Going to trial often costs more than settling would, even if you (as the defendant) were entirely right in how you handled an a/c emergency. The problem is that, even though you did everything right, and even though a body of your peers (of pilots) might agree you did everything right, there's too many unknowns when it comes to juries and jury awards in civil cases. You want to take your chance with today's juries in a civil case in our legal system? I wouldn't. If I could afford it, I'd settle out of court, even if I were in the right. There's a reason that tort reform is such a hot issue right now in many states.

Just my thoughts (from someone who got scarily close to going to law school).

My understanding ... and I got this from an EAA seminar at OSH 2005.

No Builder/Pilot of an experimental plane has been successfully sued by a passenger after an aircraft crash. Again my understanding is your (the pilot?s) lawyer will bring up the FACT that this was an experimental airplane built by an amateur and WHAT was the passenger thinking for going in an EXPERIMENTAL airplane.

Here?s the BUT ? many builders/pilots HAVE BEEN successfully sued for damage cause to other property.

Just hiring a lawyer to defend you, something you will be required to do if sued, is very expensive and will dent your budget considerably.

Look at this example of a lawsuit: A very large woman (250-300#) was leading her child to a waiting acft for the purpose of maybe taking a ride. She stepped into one of those cats-eye tiedown depressions and broke her ankle. The healing process, exacerbated by her enormous weight, was slow and left her with a limp. Guess what she did next? Guess how many individuals got named in the suit? Guess how many lawyers were involved? (Names are omitted for reasons all will understand.)

She did receive a fat settlement and several of the 'innocent bystanders' were out lots of cash so's they could be properly represented in the proceedings.

Pilots own airplanes. People who own airplanes are wealthy. Wealthy people are fat, juicy, targets for law suits is how one legal eagle explained it.

Thanks for the comments guys, good insight for sure.
I'm guessing nobody but the young eagles is using any forms before giving rides then. Not sure if it is worth the trouble.....
Not giving rides seems the most prudent!
I will check with my insurance company and see what they say.
Bob Martin

What the experts say

Here is what a Lawyer wrote about the general topic of Liability Releases. My feeling is if you do something stupid you should get sued. If you are really worried about being sued may be you should not fly passengers, however a release in the hanger may not hurt. It may not help in a court but is will not hurt.

The following addresses selling your plane as well as flying passengers. George


Exculpatory Agreements/Liability Releases

Manufacturers, builders, sellers and pilots often ask whether they avoid liability by requiring that a passenger sign an "exculpatory agreement" (sometimes called a "waiver" or "disclaimer"). The answer really depends on the laws of the state where the agreement is to be signed.

Most courts do not allow a commercial seller of a product to avoid liability for injury or death to a consumer by means of such agreements. Commercial sellers are exposed to strict product liability for defective products and it is against public policy to allow them to disclaim liability. However, it's different with private parties. A number of states allow private parties to use exculpatory agreements. Some still strictly construe the language and are reluctant to enforce such agreements. Other states, including California, allow the use of such express assumption of risk agreements under the right circumstances. California even has a basic jury instruction which allows the jury to be told that a negligent party can be excused from liability where a victim has expressly has assumed the risk of his own injury. I personally believe that exculpatory agreements or disclaimers are useful because they spell out the individual responsibility people should acknowledge when undertaking risky recreational activities.

Disclaimers and waivers are frequently enforced in economic damage cases, i.e., when they involve breach-of-contract or breach-of-warranty issues. Exculpatory agreements can be more strictly construed when personal injury or death is involved. The following is a partial list of considerations relevant to whether such exculpatory agreements may be upheld by some courts:

In some states, a private seller may be able to disclaim liability for negligent acts in connection with the sale of an aircraft to a pilot purchaser who is in an equal bargaining position with the seller.

A private seller of a kit airplane might be able to disclaim liability for passenger injury resulting from negligence associated with the construction and piloting of a homebuilt aircraft if the exculpatory agreement is carefully drawn and does not violate public policy under a particular state's laws.

To be enforceable, exculpatory agreements must be unambiguous and clear as to the risks the signatory is taking. Further, the disclaimer must be written with clear and conspicuous print warning the signatory of the rights that he is giving up.

There cannot be any compulsion, pressure, economic leverage or misleading inducement that caused the person to sign the agreement.

The person who signs the agreement must be an adult and must be the person against whom the agreement will later be asserted in the event of injury.

Normally such agreements are only honored in private recreational activities which do not involve public services or public interest.

Courts might not honor these agreements if the negligent actions of a party also constitute violations of law, because while a private party may agree to release you from your own negligence, the courts have an interest in penalizing violations of the law.
Don't Expect "Boilerplate" Disclaimers to Work

It is important to understand that if anyone hopes to successfully use an exculpatory agreement to cut off a serious injury or death claim, it must be carefully drafted by an attorney knowledgeable in this area and should be customized for the particular operation involved. Thus, "cookie cutter" form agreements that one pilot has copied from another pilot, who got it from a friend, after it was prepared by a lawyer for a different circumstance, are not likely to be honored by the courts. Anyone who uses "personal injury and death disclaimer" should anticipate that a plaintiff's attorney will scrutinize the document and the circumstances in which it was used to argue that the victim didn't understand what he was giving up. Trial courts and appellate courts will scrutinize the "disclaimer" before enforcing such agreements because it may mean dismissing somebody's million-dollar wrongful-death suit.

There is no guarantee that an exculpatory agreement would be upheld by any particular court; however, there is in incidental benefit to using such exculpatory agreements between sellers and buyers and between pilot owners and passengers. An attorney who takes on the case of a victim against a homebuilder or a pilot must seriously consider the risk that the exculpatory agreement will be enforced by the court and that the case will be thrown out. Thus, a lack of substantial assets coupled with the existence of a well-written exculpatory agreement may mean the difference between a lawsuit and no lawsuit. Even if the lawsuit is filed, the case may be settled on much more negotiable terms if the defense lawyer has the ability to assert the exculpatory agreement against the plaintiff's claims.

I believe that exculpatory agreements are an ideal tool for the sellers of homebuilt aircraft to use with buyers and for the operators of homebuilt aircraft to use with passengers. Why shouldn't people be able to give up their right to sue if they knowingly and voluntarily assume a recreational risk?

Conclusion

The growth of the homebuilt industry is exciting. Unfortunately, when accidents occur, lawsuits will follow. Careful building procedures and safe operating practices should minimize exposure to lawsuits.

A recurring problem in homebuilt accidents is the fact that the pilot often flies a new-model aircraft with little or no specific training in that particular model. Kit manufacturers should consider offering training to their customers. Smart underwriters require training before providing insurance. Prudent builders who know that their life depends on the quality of their construction should exercise the same amount of prudence on the operational side and obtain familiarization training in their aircraft before flying it solo.

EAA and the FAA provide a wealth of literature for aspiring homebuilder pilots. A mastery of this information and a healthy dose of common sense will prevent the accidents that lead to the lawsuits. Also, it wouldn't hurt to have a properly drafted exculpatory agreement in the hangar, just in case.

NOTE: The issues discussed in this article do not constitute legal advice. My objective is to alert you to some common issues so that you can avoid or minimize legal trouble. Anyone with an aviation law problem should be guided by the advice of his or her lawyer, under applicable federal and state laws, after a full and confidential disclosure of all relevant facts

Liability Release Form

Thanks George!
Fantastic reading and right on target too. Where did that come from?
I wonder now, if the AOPA form I started with was drafted by a room full of Lawyers??? It was free....although I do pay dues.
Bob Martin, RV-6

Food For Thought

Last March, there was a fatal Glassair I RG that crashed into the middle of house. Aboard the Glassair were the pilot (who purchased the plane from the original builder) and a man who was apparently getting a demo ride. The news article said the pilot was performing low altitude aerobatics about 200 feet above a residential neighborhood, when he suddenly dove strainght down into a large two story house, killing the 19 year old college student who lived there. The news article said the pilot had informed his family where in the neighborhood they could best see him fly. The conclusion was that 3 people died (pilot, passenger, and house occupant); a lawsuit has been filed against the pilot; the passenger (probably due to the uncertainty of being able to prove who was at the controls); and the original builder (probably to allow the lawyer to pursue a claim under product liability theory- defective or negligent manufacture, or failure to post adequate warning of danger). The worst case scenario, as to the eventual outcome, would probably be the following:
Pilot's insurance policy is voided, due to claims of possible illegal flying (e.g. too low; without a low altitude aerobatic endorsement; unauthorized area; possible absence of parachute; etc. etc.); wife is held financially responsible for husband's torts, if flying is held to be a recreactional activity for the benefit of the marital community (as the appellate courts have ruled in some states) ; so wife ends up being responsible for compensating all injured parties, the cost of repairing or rebuilding 3 homes; both sides attorney's fees and costs (expert witnesses);etc. It is possible that wife could try to discharge liability in bankruptcy, but if husband pilot was held to have acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others (i.e. with malice) much of the liability may not be dischargable. The damages in this case would easily go into the millions. As far as Product Liability in general is concerned, I believe the general rule (which may be different in some states) is that the manufacturer and everyone in the chain of distribution is liable- wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. The scary thing about Product Liability is that you can be held liable without having been negligent. Can't count on disclaimers- may be held to be void as against public policy- e.g. If put a sign on my car saying "NOT LIABLE FOR MY NEGLIGENT DRIVING" or if Toyota painted "NOT LIABLE FOR ANY DEFECTS IN DESIGN OR MANUFACTURE"- won't work- Based on this liability concern and just the thought that I could cause my wife to be kicked out of house and home and lose most of her assets, I have decided to add the money I was going to spend on an RV into a second 401K- Merely one person's opinion, offered as food for thought. I am still trying to find an acceptable way to get back into the air though, and envy all of you RV'ers

combat404 said:

Last March, there was a fatal Glassair I RG that crashed into the middle of house. Aboard the Glassair were the pilot (who purchased the plane from the original builder) and a man who was apparently getting a demo ride. The news article said the pilot was performing low altitude aerobatics about 200 feet above a residential neighborhood, when he suddenly dove strainght down into a large two story house, killing the 19 year old college student who lived there. The news article said the pilot had informed his family where in the neighborhood they could best see him fly. The conclusion was that 3 people died (pilot, passenger, and house occupant); a lawsuit has been filed against the pilot; the passenger (probably due to the uncertainty of being able to prove who was at the controls); and the original builder (probably to allow the lawyer to pursue a claim under product liability theory- defective or negligent manufacture, or failure to post adequate warning of danger). The worst case scenario, as to the eventual outcome, would probably be the following:
Pilot's insurance policy is voided, due to claims of possible illegal flying (e.g. too low; without a low altitude aerobatic endorsement; unauthorized area; possible absence of parachute; etc. etc.); wife is held financially responsible for husband's torts, if flying is held to be a recreactional activity for the benefit of the marital community (as the appellate courts have ruled in some states) ; so wife ends up being responsible for compensating all injured parties, the cost of repairing or rebuilding 3 homes; both sides attorney's fees and costs (expert witnesses);etc. It is possible that wife could try to discharge liability in bankruptcy, but if husband pilot was held to have acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others (i.e. with malice) much of the liability may not be dischargable. The damages in this case would easily go into the millions. As far as Product Liability in general is concerned, I believe the general rule (which may be different in some states) is that the manufacturer and everyone in the chain of distribution is liable- wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. The scary thing about Product Liability is that you can be held liable without having been negligent. Can't count on disclaimers- may be held to be void as against public policy- e.g. If put a sign on my car saying "NOT LIABLE FOR MY NEGLIGENT DRIVING" or if Toyota painted "NOT LIABLE FOR ANY DEFECTS IN DESIGN OR MANUFACTURE"- won't work- Based on this liability concern and just the thought that I could cause my wife to be kicked out of house and home and lose most of her assets, I have decided to add the money I was going to spend on an RV into a second 401K- Merely one person's opinion, offered as food for thought. I am still trying to find an acceptable way to get back into the air though, and envy all of you RV'ers

Click to expand...

I am an airline captain. Every time I sign the flight release, I am accepting responsibility for a multi-million dollar aircraft and the lives of everyone on board. If I thought about all the little "what ifs", I would go insane! We (airline pilots) live under a microscope...FAA, NTSB, DOT, TSA, etc. are always watching. If something bad happens, best case would be a violation...worst case, people die and we make the 5:00 news.

I am not taking a casual approach to liability...it is serious. However, we can do one of two things: 1)minimize risk as much as possible, have fun and enjoy life or 2)live in a bubble. DON'T ENVY RV'ERS, JOIN US!!! Someone could tresspass on your property while you're not home, get hurt, and take you to the cleaners. The end result is the same.

Just my .02
Bryan

Hi Guys,

There is a solution to your problem of liability and you wont sell your plane for less. Try and sell it in foreign country .
You might have to go thru the trouble of packing it and obviously sending detailed pictures and video to the prospective buyer.
There is a hassle factor, but it will be gone forever. Most countries arent as letigious as the US and a liability claim will not go anywhere.

Seriously consider foreign buyers.

Europe , South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are a very large combined market.

If you have net worth and assets, you are a target.

s_tones said:

Thank you all for a really excellent discussion on this issue.

Steve

Click to expand...

Having recently dropped $60k on a ridiculous lawsuit before emerging victorious and recouping all of those fees, I speak from experience. If you have net worth and assets, you are a target.

In response to the fellow who said: "What ever happened to the idea of each of us taking responsiblity for our own decisions?", Dream on McDuff. There is no honor or justice in court. Only greed and who can play the cat and mouse game better.

I formed an LLC to serve as the original owner and will keep the LLC in good standing but I don't expect that to fully shield me against potential lawsuits.

There is rumor that no one ever successfully litigated against an RV owner but I've yet to see the evidence supporting that claim. Suffice to say, if you have to defend yourself against a hungry lawyer and a plaintiff with no assets, you've already lost cause you will never recoup legal fees.

If you have assets (and even if you don't have assets) build the plane properly, document it well that you met and/or exceeded Van's recommendations, ask the DAR to look at every bloody item and get it in writing, submit it to exhaustive annuals, and pray for the best cause even an LLC will not stop someone from naming everyone in sight for their own screwups.

BryanArd said:

I am an airline captain. Every time I sign the flight release, I am accepting responsibility for a multi-million dollar aircraft and the lives of everyone on board. If I thought about all the little "what ifs", I would go insane! We (airline pilots) live under a microscope...FAA, NTSB, DOT, TSA, etc. are always watching. If something bad happens, best case would be a violation...worst case, people die and we make the 5:00 news.

I am not taking a casual approach to liability...it is serious. However, we can do one of two things: 1)minimize risk as much as possible, have fun and enjoy life or 2)live in a bubble. DON'T ENVY RV'ERS, JOIN US!!! Someone could tresspass on your property while you're not home, get hurt, and take you to the cleaners. The end result is the same.

Just my .02
Bryan

Click to expand...

I am a retired (retarded, as the grandkids say) airline captain and ditto what Bryan says. To sit around and worry about what MAY happen is a total waste of time, energy, and life itself.

Build that RV and fly it. It is a true joy.

I flew mine today, it's better than a good red wine and at my age, a lot of other things.

dd
RV-7A
N707DD
Subby H6

BryanArd said:

...I am not taking a casual approach to liability...it is serious. However, we can do one of two things: 1)minimize risk as much as possible, have fun and enjoy life or 2)live in a bubble. DON'T ENVY RV'ERS, JOIN US!!! Someone could tresspass on your property while you're not home, get hurt, and take you to the cleaners. The end result is the same.

Just my .02
Bryan

Click to expand...

For sure!
You could have the same liability for selling that used car that you have done all the maintenance on and the likelihood of an accident there is probably geater than in your plane.

-mike

uh oh

mlw450802 said:

For sure!
You could have the same liability for selling that used car that you have done all the maintenance on and the likelihood of an accident there is probably geater than in your plane.

-mike

Click to expand...

all the vehicles i sell have around 200,000+ miles on them and i do all of my own work, i am also a master cerified (ASE) technician. so i guess i am even more liable than the average joe. not to mention i am an A&P so will be held to a higher standard than the "home builder" even though thats all i am. one reason why i changed my screen name and dont wish to add my last name to my signature.i didnt enjoy being searchable. i can see it now,,, mr.xxx we see you said here that it was ok for so and so to use one size larger rivets but you didnt take in to consideration that could cause warp core instability and a cascade reaction causing the dishes to need to be rewashed at litespeed.
oh well like i tell my freinds i dont plan on dying on the couch so let me get back to building the bird. and i never started any project without concern for resale. this included. is this a good reason to stay in debt

liability

I read the pro and con and have only a personal observation to make. Van sold his original RV3 to a friend who had an accident in it. Van got it back, put it in a museum and has never sold any of the other RVs he has. His brother Jerry sold his RV 3 and it too had an accident. Jerry got it back and now it resides with a hangar full of RVs that Jerry dosen't sell. I think this speaks for itself as to the liability issue. Van would not even sell the Franklin engine off the Rv 8 prototype here in the US, it went to S. Africa. As far as having an AP do a condition inspection prior to sale, if they have nothing to lose I say go for it, otherwise I wouldn't touch it. The small fee collected for such a service dosen't buy much lawyer time and after the deal is done the AP is on his own if the purchaser finds something that he dislikes, been there! It's a gamble if you might end up in litigation and what I have read is the homebuilt aircraft is the next market for the new crop of attorneys graduating from law school. Pay your money and take your chances.

Lots of people in other countries will buy your RV . Make the effort and sleep at night. Even if you have to sell for slightly less its better than the unknown lawsuit.

Yes I agree , if you have assets they will sue easily. Most RV builders have some .

Liability Release

I've heard it said that a liability release is a waste of time and that it is important. Since I'm selling my RV6A I'd like to get some feedback if there is any validity to a liability release/disclaimer. I came across what I believe was an old EAA form that I'll share here. Is it worth the paper it's written on? Would it have any strength?

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT BILL OF SALE

FOR EXPERIMENTAL-AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT.
THIS FORM SUPPLEMENTS BUT DOES NOT REPLACE FAA FORM AC8050-2

REGISTRATION NUMBER (IF ASSIGNED) IS N________________.
SERIAL NUMBER OF THIS EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT IS ________________.
THIS EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT IS A FACSIMILE OF AN AIRCRAFT KNOWN AS A(N)______________.

The above described aircraft is not designed/built to meet any standards of airworthiness as are certificated aircraft. The aircraft does not have an FAA Form 317 Statement of Conformity on file, as there are no FAA approved data with which to conform. Upon sale, the new registered owner of an experimental-amateur built aircraft becomes responsible for its aerodynamic and structural function/concept. The new owner is responsible for the performance and fit or purpose of every part/piece on the aircraft.

No warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, is made to the purchaser or anyone else as to the merchantability or airworthiness of this experimental aircraft N__________. The experimental aircraft is sold on an ?AS IS? with all faults basis, as the seller is an amateur builder of this experimental aircraft and, by virtue of being experimental, this aircraft does not comply with the Federal Safety Regulations for ?Standard Aircraft?.

Flying poses certain inherent risks and can result in injury or death. Any person who pilots or rides in this experimental aircraft and in consideration of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the purchaser hereby waives and releases the builder/seller from any and all claims, demands or liability of every kind which the purchaser may have, or an owner, or a pilot, or a passenger in this experimental aircraft. This Release and Waiver is binding on all heirs, personal representatives and assigns of the purchaser, subsequent owners, pilots and/or passengers.

As purchaser, I accept the terms of this Bill of Sale for the experimental amateur built aircraft described above and agree to be bound by the above contract.

NAME OF PURCHASER:_____________________________

ADDRESS:_________________________________________

_________________________________________

SIGNATURE:_______________________________________

One additional thing I do is have the "next of kin" sign as witness. There is no guarantee that you won't be sued but the "next of kin" is the most likely party. If they have signed the disclaimer, it makes it a little more difficult.
To date, to the best of my knowledge no amateur builder has been successfully sued.

One thing missing is a statement requiring any litigation against the seller to take place in the courts of the sellers home state.
This makes the filling a more serious matter (out of state plaintiff must get a lawyer in your state, etc.). My understanding is that within the U.S. court system this is a very binding requirement.

I am not a lawyer (thankfully) but this is pretty standard in current liability release forms.

If you look through some of the "selling aircraft" info on the EAA web site. you will find this as one of the recommendations.

This is one of several issues that have concerned me about building.
Personally, I have no faith in such an agreement at all. Of particular concern to me is the fact that persons other than the new owner/signer of the agreement will inevitably ride in the plane. They will not have seen or signed the agreement and so might be more likely to cause trouble.

That said, I have not heard any accounts of sellers being sued for problems with their airplane. As has been pointed out before, it says "Experimental" right on the plane!! I doubt anyone would win such a lawsuit but you might fork out some cash defending yourself.

Steve

I have heard (again, not a lawyer) that a release can only protect you from the one who signs it. So, if he buys the plane and dies in it, his wife could come after you. If she also signs the release, then a lawyer representing the children (who would be too young to sign, or who haven't been born yet) could come after you. Even if the kids are grown, there will always be some lawyer who will tempt the surviors with the promises of lots of money. Perhaps the best defense is to not accumulate much wealth so coming after you won't be as lucrative for a lawyer working on a contingency fee. (I do suppose that if they sue you, they would also be going after the deeper pockets of Van's, and I guess he has yet to lose a suit, so that serves to dampen a lawyer's appetite to sue.)

Does the 19 year (?) liability release that congress passed apply to home builts? I mean, if you sold the plane after 20 years, would you then be immune to a claim of liability?

To me, if a man buys something and signs a release, that release should apply to his heirs. I mean, if I buy an expensive house and die, my heirs will either have to suck up and keep paying for it, or they will lose it. Same situation here ...if I sign a release and kill myself, my heirs should have to suck it up. But, don't blame the lawyers too much -- it is the juries and some misguided judges who mucks it up by giving stupid awards.

Jeff R said:

so that serves to dampen a lawyer's appetite to sue.)

Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree with you, but until it costs a lawyer something----fines, jail time, plaintiff reimbursement ETC-- when they file BS claims, their appetite to sue will never be dampened.

Mike

Notes from an attorney

OK guys,
Before the lawyer bashing gets too hot and heavy, why don't we all step back and take a deep breath. First of all, I am a lawyer and a RV-8A builder.

It just so happens that I write liability waiver and notice statements for a living (among other lawyerly duties). The sale of an aircraft bears with it certain legal obligations and responsibilities. If, for example, you decide that those pesky wing attach bolts are hardly necessary and that hardware store bolts are much easier to install, who should be responsible when the purchaser of your aircraft tests out the double indemnity clause of his life insurance policy. Of course, all of the lawyer-phobes will tell you that some guy lost all of his life savings to a dirty trial lawyer representing some guy who flew into a mountain in the fog, but most of these stories are apocrophyl, at best (i.e. they are simply made up lies). I urge you to check out some of these wilder stories before spreading them and making up your mind about the legal system.

So, what is a builder to do when he sells his homebuilt. It makes sense to use an agreement similar to the one set out above to establish some ground rules between the seller and the buyer. First, the seller should warn the buyer (in the written document) of the risks involved in buying this aircraft (such as an amateur builder, non-certified design, etc.). Next, the seller can bargain for the buyer to indemnify the seller (pay him back) if any future passenger or subsequent buyer ever sues the seller as a result of injury coming from the aircraft. Although a seller cannot avoid all liability (and indeed he should not, as we saw with our store bought wing attach bolts) he can certainly minimize his exposure.

There are no easy answers. That is why we have those dreaded lawyers to guide us through the varying state laws and the different legal mazes. Every aircraft, every builder, every seller and every buyer are different. It is not smart to use a one-size fits all agreement for every aircraft sale. Get a good aviation lawyer to help you. It is not that expensive and it could help you control your risk considerably. This is not an ad for me or any other lawyer, just some advice from someone with some experience.
Thanks for hearing me out.

Liability Release

I am a CA lawyer, thinking of building an RV, after I have time and retire, and I would be very reluctant to sell my RV. The state of product liability law, regarding the liability of one who constructs a homebuilt aircraft, is uncertain and there is little or no case law (appellate or supreme court cases). Even if the home builder is not held liable, under product liability law, as a "manufacturer", he or she may be sued under a negligence theory, e.g. negligent maintenance; negligent modification; non-disclosure of a material fact or omission, etc. A jury of lay people, who don't know a spiner from a rudder, is not likely to be very sympathetic to an unlicensed "mechanic" who has done all of the maintenance on his or her RV. At best, you will have to hire an experienced attorney to defend you in court. After all of the discovery; motions; expert witnesses; and appeals, the case could drag on for ten years. Even if you win, you will probably be bankrupt from paying the cost of litigation.

To illustrate how expensive litigation is, in a recent case an apartment owner wanted to evict his tenant for keeping a cat (breach of lease barring pets); told manager to evict; manager mistakenly put his name on the complaint as "owner"; legal aid attorney got the complaint dismissed on a motion for summary judgment; legal aid asked for $27k in fees; owner hired attorney to defend legal aid's attorney fee claim, as case was dismissed on pretrial motion- conclusion: The owner (my brother, who never listens to my legal advice, because he thinks I am too conservative) paid his lawyer (a law school classmate, of mine, I have not seen since 1973) $40k and tenant's lawyer (legal aid) $10k - This was a simple eviction for keeping at cat, which was forbidden under the lease. $50k for one cat- after that, the tenant got 5 cats. One of you once said- If you have any assets, they are going to come after you. I believe- You can count on it. I also believe that releases, and even liability insurance provide little or no assurance of protection from high litigation costs- e.g. did not give knowledgable and informed consent; pilot was flying in violation of FAA regs- was performing aerobatics without a parachute; made a zoom climb in excess of 30 degrees at residential airport; etc.,etc.- All of these kinds of claims may be asserted to void the insurance or the validity of the release. If I build an RV, I will end up selling it for scrap metal. I have too much to lose and can't risk being kicked out of house and home. Hope that answers your question.