Oregon RV-10 Accident Leads to $35-Million Lawsuit

[danielabernath]

Since we are talking about liability

What happens when you sell a used RV?
Your the manufacturer

The defendants were sued for products liability. AND sued Vans for "negligence" in regular tort.

Elements of Negligence
Duty (do you have a duty to someone you never sold anything to, like the passengers?)
Breach of Duty
Causation (your negligence caused the damage)
and Damages.

Interesting point.

Elements of strict lliability in tort (also called products liability)

The manufacturer sold the product in the course of its business.
The product was sold in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous when the product was put to a reasonably anticipated use.
The defective product was used in a manner reasonably anticipated.
The consumer was damaged as a direct result of the defective condition that existed when the product was sold.

So, in my non-opinion, the maker of the Vans, selling to someone else, and 2nd owner then does those modifications then there is no "causation" between anything the maker (you) did that caused the death of the new owner.

If you do any modification then you best disclose, disclose, disclose and get the buyer to sign that you told him everything and told him that he must hire a qualified a and p faa certified expert to determine airworthiness.

Sticky stuff you bring up.

[epaslick]

Originally Posted by RVDan

The attorneys have an incorrect citation. It should be 23.955. The scary part is that they are inferring that kit built aircraft should meet the part 23 regulations.
This seems disputable on so many levels.

Actually I think they were trying to cite 23.1337 (c) "Fuel flowmeter system. If a fuel flowmeter system is installed, each metering component must have a means to by-pass the fuel supply if malfunctioning of that component severely restricts fuel flow."

Still doesn't apply to experimentals.

[Mel]

I really don't understand where all this surprise comes from.

When you register your amateur-built aircraft, you list yourself as "The Builder"! Who else did you think would be liable?
The kit manufacturer has no control over how you build the aircraft.
The DAR/FAA Inspector only certifies that the aircraft meets amateur-built regulations.

You, the builder, are the one certifying that the aircraft is "in a condition for safe operation."

[1001001]

Originally Posted by Jerry Cochran

....religious and since I live close by I just pray I can be on that jury if there even is one...

That public statement would be more than enough to ensure you never will. Of course during voir dire , you would almost certainly be asked if you know anything about aviation, and be disqualified. Knowing anything about or having any sort of experience with the subject matter of a case is generally enough to have at least one of the attorneys reject you. They really don't want anyone who could question their logic or perhaps introduce real world information into a jury deliberation.

[Pmerems]

History of FloScan Aircraft Flow Transducers

In 1972, Aerosonics, (a leading U.S. avionics manufacturer at the time) began testing the Series 200 flow transducers to determine its suitability for use in general aviation aircraft. Prior to that time there had not been a generally acceptable transducer for this application. The company required a fuel flow transducer which would withstand the vibration of an aircraft engine. It also had to meet the important FAA regulation regarding blocked rotor pressure drop which could not be more than 1.5 times the spinning rotor pressure drop. Our design far surpassed the test requirement since a blocked rotor does not change the pressure drop of a FloScan flow transducer.

A blocked rotor in the sentence may mean a stopped rotor and blocked passage. If the FloScan doesn't have an internal bypass and these are used on certified aircraft, is an external bypass installed with a check valve per FAR 23.1337 (c)? Does anyone know?

[MikeyDale]

[quote=Flying again!;1023151]I lived in the UK for over 3 years and in the Netherlands for 4. They do not have near the number of lawsuits for one reason. If you sue and lose, you have to pay all the costs of the person you sued plus court costs.

That forces someone to make sure there is a real case before suing or risk making themselves bankrupt.

Of course this will never happen here since so many lawyers make too much money from the lawsuit culture we have developed in the US.[/QUOTE

I agree with the above! We need Tort Reform! Trouble is, lawyers write the laws!

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by Pmerems

History of FloScan Aircraft Flow Transducers

In 1972, Aerosonics, (a leading U.S. avionics manufacturer at the time) began testing the Series 200 flow transducers to determine its suitability for use in general aviation aircraft. Prior to that time there had not been a generally acceptable transducer for this application. The company required a fuel flow transducer which would withstand the vibration of an aircraft engine. It also had to meet the important FAA regulation regarding blocked rotor pressure drop which could not be more than 1.5 times the spinning rotor pressure drop. Our design far surpassed the test requirement since a blocked rotor does not change the pressure drop of a FloScan flow transducer.

A blocked rotor in the sentence may mean a stopped rotor and blocked passage. If the FloScan doesn't have an internal bypass and these are used on certified aircraft, is an external bypass installed with a check valve per FAR 23.1337 (c)? Does anyone know?

I'm having trouble making some of these things line up...seems to me, from the NTSB report, the fuel was blocked from *ever getting INTO the transducer to block the rotor/impeller in the first place* (looked to me like the big hunk of RTV blocked the inlet hole in the machined portion of the transducer where the AN fitting went).

In other words, the transducer was just the point at which the fuel system got blocked. It could have been blocked anywhere if that's what he was using for "sealant". It wouldn't matter what transducer was there, and whether it had an *internal* bypass or not, would it?

What I consider more important is that pilot *failed to land under control*...he stalled it:

"The airplane felt like it stopped and the warning came on that the airplane was slow started going off and the screens flickering on and off. The pilot tried to pull up and spiraled down harder to the ground." (NTSB files, statement of female passenger)

Unfortunately, the NTSB report will not be admissible as evidence.

[RV7A Flyer]

BTW, here are the NTSB's list of Probable Causes:

Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Fuel system-(general)-Incorrect service/maintenance - C
Personnel issues-Task performance-Maintenance-Installation-Owner/builder - C
Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained - C
Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Angle of attack-Not attained/maintained - C
Findings Legend: (C) = Cause, (F) = Factor

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
A total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation because of a blocked fuel line that resulted from the pilot’s improper maintenance
practices and the pilot’s subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a forced landing, which led to the airplane
exceeding its critical angle-of-attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.

I don't see anything that points to Van's or Floscan in there, do you? Not that it makes any difference whatsoever to the people filing the suit...

[RVDan]

Originally Posted by epaslick

Actually I think they were trying to cite 23.1337 (c) "Fuel flowmeter system. If a fuel flowmeter system is installed, each metering component must have a means to by-pass the fuel supply if malfunctioning of that component severely restricts fuel flow."

Still doesn't apply to experimentals.

It appears that for the installed flow meter almost the same requirement is in 23.955. Generally what both rules are about though is meeting the flow requirements with a locked rotor condition, a reasonably anticipated condition. The flowscan transducer is used in many certified applications. The rules assume that the sensor rotor has failed and stops rotating (blocked). Early transducers could create excessive pressure drops in that condition. I know when certifiyng flow transmitters, that is how the rules are applied at least for any of the STC's I've worked. We actually modify a transducer to lock up the rotor by gluing the bearings to lock the rotor and run the pressure drop test. I don't think system contamination from large chunks of stuff were what either of these rules are about.

The bypass discussed in the rules is a bypass around the turbine or paddle wheel that creates the signal in the transducer. The flowscan sensor uses a wheel that does not significantly obstruct flow and allows fuel to bypass around the locked rotor of the transducer. Some other sensors do a similar thing when necessary with a bypass internal to the sensor, not actually a line around the sensor. Ref AC23-16A

[rmartingt]

Originally Posted by Jordan1976

Please don't use the McDonalds suit as examples of extreme tort cases. The woman was in a car that was parked, wasn't in the driver's seat, and literally almost died from the burns. This would have been somewhat excusable, except McDonalds had thousands of reports of the same issue.

She originally asked McDonalds to cover her $20,000 medical costs. When they treated her badly, she then filed a lawsuit. The final verdict was $649,000, or about 10 hours of coffee sales by McDonalds. Hardly "big money". Also, $200K was the actual damages, but $480,000 was "punitive" because McDonalds was aware of the issue.

There's a great movie on this called Hot Coffee. It's far from black and white.

It's worse than that. The McDonald's people got on the stand and proceeded to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot with a 12-gauge, arguing that people buying their coffee weren't intending to drink it immediately but instead were getting it to consume later (yeah, right; we all know better). They used the words "unfit for consumption" multiple times in reference to their coffee, because the temperature was significantly higher than that of other restaurants and caused 3rd degree burns in a couple seconds. And they argued that they knew of hundreds of incidents of people receiving 3rd degree burns from the coffee, but they weren't concerned, because the number was too small to worry about.

In saying all this, they ticked off the jury by managing to come across as completely callous... umm... body cavities. That's why the jury initially awarded her millions in punitive damages.