|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

11-01-2012, 03:20 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: McMinnville, Oregon: HOME of the SPRUCE GOOSE
Posts: 540
|
|
Experimental Aircraft
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
I personally know of several cases where the builder was sued.
I know of none, nor have I heard of any being successful.
The builder is the builder, is the builder, forever and ever, Amen!
Parting out does NOT relieve the builder of any liability.
|
I also have heard for years that no one has been successful in a lawsuit against the builder on an Experimental Aircraft. I have no confirmation if my info is current. Something to keep current on as things do change.
__________________
Tailwinds...
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Leonardo Da Vinci
Working on a RV-4
Citabria 7GCBC
Cessna 180
RV7 I0-360 C/S, Slider, AP, Glass, etc. sold.
RV6 O-320 F/P, Slider, AP, Steam, etc., sold
Citabria 7KCAB rental
Piper Cherokee, sold
Sparrowhawk, sold
Proud -VAF- Supporter - Exempt, Dues Paid Anyway.
|

11-01-2012, 11:21 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Taylor Texas
Posts: 811
|
|
NOTHING matters
If a party wants to sue you, you WILL be served. It matters not who is, or is not, at fault. You will spend $$$ on defense.
If you choose to settle, be ready for the size of THAT check! In the end, you have not been successfully sued, but you have surely paid to be released.
That being said, the plaintiffs usually go for the deep pockets. I have found their 1st question to be about insurance: are you insured for such a loss? If the answer is no, sometimes, I am told, they will desist. Their attorneys are looking for a quick turn-around, and a protracted lawsuit is not what they want.
So, who has the deep pockets? The kit manufacturer, or at minimum this is the expectation of the plaintiffs' attorneys. So, the kit manufacturer is named in the suit.
Ask me how I know about this.
You could incorporate, but this doesn't work either. I know about that, too.
The plaintiffs end game is to place blame on anyone else - in their eyes, their loved one could not be at fault. Ever. This is completely understandable, but not always moral, or ethical.
So, de-register your plane if you want - it might help you (the builder), but it will not likely help the kit manufacturer. Seems the process to re-register such a pile of parts is actually fairly easy, tho completely illegal, or at least outside the normal process.
Again, you can ask me how I know about this.
Depressing? Speaking as a manufacturer, you bet. I'd like to build more airplanes - you have heard the plans - but I have to ask myself WHY would I? There is no real money in it - there never was for me. Do I want to fund another defense using my remaining retirement, if there is any left? No, thanks. I might build ONE MORE, for myself...
I could go on and on, but the plaintiffs attorneys are surely watching this site.
Carry on!
Mark
|

11-01-2012, 11:32 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: La Feria Texas
Posts: 3,822
|
|
When one builds an R12 ELSA (which most are being built this way), his name as builder does not go on it, only Vans as the manufacturer. Other than the chain of ownership, the actual builder is never even named. I suppose that would pretty well eliminate the actual builders from liability, no way to prove who that really was since there is no 51% rule either, the first owner may have not even pulled one rivet.
Maybe the deep pockets would be the FAA or the DAR who said it was airworthy.
|

11-01-2012, 12:01 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonFromTX
Maybe the deep pockets would be the FAA or the DAR who said it was airworthy.
|
First off, the FAA nor the DAR ever deem an experimental aircraft as "airworthy".
The builder signs off on the aircraft as being "in a condition for safe operation."
The FAA or the DAR only signs off on it meeting "the requirements for the certificate requested."
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

11-01-2012, 12:55 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonFromTX
When one builds an R12 ELSA (which most are being built this way), his name as builder does not go on it, only Vans as the manufacturer. Other than the chain of ownership, the actual builder is never even named. I suppose that would pretty well eliminate the actual builders from liability, no way to prove who that really was since there is no 51% rule either, the first owner may have not even pulled one rivet.
|
Good luck with that. It's probably next to trivial to figure out who built it, there are probably builder's logs, websites showing photos, record of "hey, how do you fix this issue?" here on VAF, photos of first flight with "yay, I built and flew my own airplane!" captions, etc. Unless the builder is (a) dead or (b) willing to perjure him/herself under oath, who built it will be easy to ascertain with a very high degree of certainty.
As others have pointed out, it's not likely to be an issue unless (like Mark) you become a vendor of parts or kits.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

11-01-2012, 05:12 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 270
|
|
If the builder is deceased and the plane is sold in an estate sale can the surviving spouse / estate be held libel?
__________________
Richard
Portland, OR RV-7A
|

11-01-2012, 06:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 130
|
|
I can hear the final argument to the jury now. My clients lost their loved one in an Aircraft that was built in a garage by an amateur builder. Now when the armature built experimental was sold it was sold
" as is where is" condition with no warranties expressed on implied. The widget installed on this aircraft that failed and caused this accident was not approved by the FAA to be used on a certified aircraft because the accident aircraft was not a certified aircraft and was an experimental aircraft built by a person in their garage over a period of a number years. Even though my clients loved one knew that he/she was flying in an Experimental aircraft noted by the large printed Experimental sign posted for everyone to see. I believe that the jury should award a multi million dollar award because I slept in a Fancy hotel last night.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.
|