Owner destroys RV-8 to avoid liability

[kiwiRVer]

Lawyers - making the world a better place, one lawsuit at a time...

[arffguy]

Besides what primer he used, I think the trim tab might of been wonky too.

So someone removes a prop and engine, then sells them. What's the potential liability for that?


KiwiRVer, welcome to Van's Air Force!

[BlackhawkSP]

Too bad lawyers can't be held responsible for all THEIR actions that hurt others, like the rest of us. As an example, like the criminals they get off/out of jail on a technicality and then the hoodlum hurts/robs/kills someone else, all the waste they cause (like this case), or for everyone else paying way more for everything we use that costs more because of all the added "idiot switches/warnings/lights" brought about by idiotic law suits filed by morons. Most everything lawyers get involved in takes longer, costs more, is less efficient, and generally more of a PIA to deal with. I have a doctor friend who will not treat a lawyer. If he finds out the prospective patient is a lawyer, he will make up a reason to refer him elsewhere. They are not my favorite people. Sorry if you are one, but the reputation is fairly well deserved. I've heard that most lawyers don't even like lawyers.

[boom3]

Sad ending.

I could think of better things to do with mine if I was worried about selling it.

Pull the data plate and...

Hang it in the living room.
Put it in the backyard for future grandkids to play in.
Donate it to a museum.
Donate it to an A and P school.
Wind T.

They'd probably still find a way to sue me.

[jrs14855]

Originally Posted by pierre smith

The retired owner/builder had the same concerns, so he de-registered it and removed the N number, stripped the airframe of all avionics, engine, prop and interior.

He then advertised it as "airplane parts" and it sold and is now flying in Georgia....seems a much better alternative that accomplishes the same thing. It was a bargain at $6,000 IIRC, maybe $7,000 for a complete airframe.

Best,

That of course is not legal in the US unless the original paperwork was intact. Among the paperwork that is required for a new homebuilt airplane is a notarized statement that the airplane was built for "educational purposes".
Not to say it doesn't happen, of course it does. But the "new builder" is exposed to possible charges of fraud if the authorities choose to pursue this. Typically the problem that comes up is that the "new builder" is not capable of answering basic questions about building the airplane in question.
It is of course legal for someone to purchase and finish an airplane that is 99% complete, as long as there is a proper trail of paperwork.

[g zero]

In the big picture of someone's financial life it might not be that big of a loss doing that . I met a lady selling a Cub knock off on floats that her husband built , he died before it was flyable . The plane was N-numbered and registered as him being the manufacturer. After reading about a 99% crash rate of that kit plane I recommended to her to consider donating it to the local vocational school , and using the tax write off , as she said her husband had over $175,000 in it !

Not long after that I saw a GlasAir ( different plane ) for sale from a Vocational School for sale , I called about it , found out it was donated by a widow . I guess the donation failed from a liability standpoint . I guess it depends on your financial status on what you decide when the time comes .

[schaplerrh]

I'm going to be sick....

[tomkk]

Originally Posted by bkthomps

No, the manufacturer of the plane is what places the builder at risk

How, if any, does the situation change with an ELSA where the builder is not listed as the manufacturer.

[FlyArmy]

It'll buff out.