What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Owner destroys RV-8 to avoid liability

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bkthomps

Well Known Member
has this been posted? I searched the video ID and didn't see anything

let the discussion begin (click for video)

 
kinda sad. Why not part it out? (looks like a lot was, but I still see some good parts)
Seems like the lawyers did a good job of covering their own butts.
 
Last edited:
1001001 said:
Liability for what?
Click to expand...

i would imagine liability of being the builder/manufacturer and selling it to the next guy, owner/builder is high net worth individual who apparently conferred with numerous attorneys/insurers to determine there was no way to avoid the potential liability down the road, makes you think
 
Do you know that's why it was scrapped? What if it was badly damaged for one reason or another and the owner elected not to repair it.

Dave
 
Another way to look at this..... He did get scrap aluminum price.....:D




Imagine what it costs to get rid of a Glasair.....:eek:
 
Last edited:
John Denver crash - all previous owners and the builder sued.
Russians shoot down Korean 747 - Boeing sued.
Student pilot (solo cross-country) attempts to fly thru a fog bank - CFI sued.

To the best of my knowledge the defendants 'won' in all these cases. But only after spending substantial amounts of money on legal fees. Boeing claims to have spent $1 million. So really, even though they won, they lost.

I know several well off pilots who have said that they thought that they would enjoy being a cfi. Their personal lawyers told them no.
 
Local pilot had an experimental he used for hard aerobatics. When he decided to upgrade his attorney advised the same thing. Don't even part it out. I never did ask what happened to the old one now that he has he new one.
 
So SAD IS RIGHT!!! Just down the street is the court house where this will play out. Makes me sick to see this building several days a week.,,,,,,The brighter note of this aircraft could have been sold as a DISPLAY for a lobby of a airport terminal or......Your thought here............,museum.........Tech School. Then write if off as a donation.

I believe EAA should have this liability clause Changed. where as liability ENDS at Sale. I would donate to EAA FUND for reform.

Ron in Oregon
 
Own under an LLC?

If you owned your experimental under a company like an LLC, would that limit the liability to the company and not the individual who built, maintains or owns the aircraft?
 
Remember the Piper Cub accident trirty some years back???

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1993/December/1/Pilot-Counsel-(11)

"This is the case that arose out of a 1983 accident that occurred at a residential airpark in New Mexico. A Piper Super Cub, attempting a takeoff, struck a GMC van intentionally parked on the runway to prevent the takeoff. The Cub was towing a sailplane at the time. The purpose of the flight was to photograph the sailplane for a television commercial. The pilot had the front seat removed and installed in its place a large movie camera on a camera mount. It was mounted in such a way that the cameraman had to sit on two-by-fours, facing rearward toward the camera, with his back against the instrument panel. The pilot sat in the rear seat."

If the manufacturer could be found responsible in that---------------anything can happen.
 
Last edited:
I bet it was a Dam Good Airplane Too!, 700TT Wow, painful to watch! Must be a real high net worth builder as this is overkill.If you pull all the control surfaces off the plane or the tail rotor off a helicopter wouldn't this shift the responsibility to the next builder/shop that restores the ship to flight worthy status?
 
I know the owner of a -4

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

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


KiwiRVer, welcome to Van's Air Force!
 
Last edited:
Owner destroys RV8 to avoid liability

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:).
 
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.:eek:
 
Legality

pierre smith said:
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,
Click to expand...

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.
 
Destroy

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 .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top