R

Rutus

Some of you are surely aware of the 2002 lawsuit in Snohomish County, Washington against EAA and NWEAA arising out of the fatal crash of Don Corbitt's RV-6A in 1999. In 2006, after a lengthy trial, the superior court jury awarded a large judgment in favor of Corbitt's estate, and against both EAA and NWEAA.

The case went up to the Court of Appeals, and yesterday the court reversed the judgment, finding that EAA and NWEAA were not liable. The opinion can be found http://http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=595199MAJ A PDF version can be downloaded at the top page of the link.

I've not read the opinion yet and cannot comment on it; I am posting the information here for those who may be interested.

Fly safe.
 
judgement

Well, my eyes hurt after reading the entire document in small type. It appears, the courts did not go into aerodynamics or cause of the accident. They did talk about ditches and protection and several other court cases where the organizer was responsible for protection of the invited individual(s). It also talked about the land leased by the event was not where the individual came to rest in the aircraft. If the individual had crashed upon the leased surface, the outcome could of been quite different as the courts seems to believe that the organizers have the duty to warn it's guests about imminent dangers surrounding their venue. This may of been the accident whereupon the pilot had the control stick of the rv-6a secured by a seatbelt, I'm not sure. It stated that he climbed and immediately rolled which would substantiate the seatbelt theory. The initial award was 10.5 MILLION.... it was overturned. The real suit was over the protection provided by the (all volunteer) emergency services. She argued that the emergency protection should of extended from the venue to land outside the venue. I did find a fair amount of documentation about the deceased and his flight time and recent earning of the private fixed wing license. 136 hrs I believe. I'm glad EAA and the other organization entered into a letter of understanding to clarify their relationships. In the future, maybe we can protect ourselves somehow from lawsuits... I'm not a lawyer.... and I don't know how, but it would be nice to have a non-liable form on the eaa membership form that basically states nobody can sue anybody for any reason. I'm guessing the price of a new airplane goes like this, 50% to insurance and lawyers... and 50% to the aircraft company... I could be wrong. Only if I were King for a day.....
 
"Premises Liability" Theory

Yes, the case was not about what caused the accident (there was evidence at trial about the stick being secured by a seatbelt, but it was not conclusive), but rather the case turned on whether EAA and NWEAA had taken reasonable measures to respond to an accident (having an ARFFS truck and crew on hand). Premises liability cases usually are based on an allegedly dangerous condition on the premises that are controlled by the defendant, but in some cases the theory can be based on the premises possessor's alleged duty to protect guests from hazards that are not created by or inherent in the premises itself (like the Nivens case discussed in the opinion). Corbitt's estate relied primarily on that latter theory.

It is possible that Corbitt's estate will appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, which can choose to accept review of this decision or decline to review it. If it does accept review, it will be at least another year before the final decision in the case is issued.
 
The good news is it was over turned. The bad news is the suit was filed in the first place.

When are we as a country going to reform liability laws? This is KILLING our country.
 
It looks to me that she (the widow) lost her case because of loop holes - the EAA and NWEAA are found not responsible because crash happened outside their leased property and the city of Arlington was declared not liable before and that order was not appealed. Like she didn't appeal first order being sure to get bigger money from EAA and now she's left with nothing.

BUT setting all financial things aside a question comes to my mind that I'd like to know answer for. "What is the time I(we) can expect fire truck being on stand by to get to any point of the airport?". The crash happened on the airport perimeter (from NTSB: "...the aircraft impacted a parallel taxiway...") and there was fire truck on duty during the airshow. Yet it took them 3 to 5 minutes to get to the place. So if it ever happens to me how fast can I expect them to get to me lying in fire on taxiway? Is there any rule for that? Any norm?
 
Geico266 said:
The good news is it was over turned. The bad news is the suit was filed in the first place.

When are we as a country going to reform liability laws? This is KILLING our country.
Click to expand...
It's not the liability laws that kills this country. It's the money judges are granting. If the fire crew did arrive too late they (in my opinion) are/were liable and should be held for it. But it always amazes me how they came up with the amount?
 
Tomasz said:
It looks to me that she (the widow) lost her case because of loop holes - the EAA and NWEAA are found not responsible because crash happened outside their leased property and the city of Arlington was declared not liable before and that order was not appealed. ?
Click to expand...

I read the opinion a bit differently; NWEAA won their case because they are not responsible from protecting invitees from their own negligent actions. In the jury trial Mr. Corbitt was assigned negligence for his own death. The Nivens trial cited stated that property owners have a duty to protect invitees from forseeable 3rd parties, not from themselves. The fact that the accident took place outside of the property leased by the NWEAA was cited as supporting the decision, but not the main reason why the case was overturned.

The EAA won their case because the court stated they had no legal obligation to Mr. Corbitt as they were not the organizers of the event or the lessee for the property on which the event was held.

Just my clarification.
 
Last edited:
jtrusso said:
I read the opinion a bit differently; NWEAA won their case because they are not responsible from protecting invitees from their own negligent actions. In the jury trial Mr. Corbitt was assigned negligence for his own death.
Click to expand...

I don't want to start dispute but from the order:

"The complaint alleged that NWEAA, EAA, and the City of Arlington were negligent for "failing to adequately respond to Mr. Corbitt's accident" and failing "to provide adequate fire, rescue, and emergency response for the
fly-in."

which is clear to me - the widow sued the city and organizations for slow respond to the crash, not for preventing the crash from happening in the first place.
 
"Public Duty Doctrine"

The dismissal of the City was, as I recall, based on the "public duty doctrine", under which a public entity (city, county, etc.) that owes a generalized duty to the population cannot be liable to someone who is injured because the City failed to carry out that duty in their particular case. Example: firefighters have a duty to respond to fire calls, if they are slow and fail to get to your burning house in time, that may be "negligence" under the law, but the City is immune from liability for that. Or, building department has a duty to inspect new construction for code compliance, but if they sign off the work as "OK" and in fact there are all kinds of defects that fail to meet code, you (the project owner) cannot sue for that. Washington has carved out some exceptions over the years to this rule, but it still exists and was used by the City in this case.

John (jtrusso's) comments are close, but I don't quite agree. As to the City, Corbitt's estate probably did not have the facts needed to establish one of those public duty exceptions and therefore did not feel it worthwhile to appeal that ruling as to the City. The court's opinion states that the trial court's dismissal of the City was not appealed.

Also, the case did not turn on whether Corbitt's own negligence caused the accident - this was a "survivability" case, where the plaintiff sues for damages caused by the failure of the responders to prevent further injury after the initial event (sort of like the seatbelt "enhanced injury" cases, where some bum driving the other car causes the accident, but the injured person sues the manufacturer of the car they were riding in, claiming that bad seatbelt design caused them enhanced injuries...). The Estate's theory here was that Corbitt survived the impact, but suffered much worse injuries - and died from - the post-crash fire.
 
Rutus said:
The Estate's theory here was that Corbitt survived the impact, but suffered much worse injuries - and died from - the post-crash fire.
Click to expand...
I don't know about this accident and I must add upfront that I am saddened that it happened at all. That aside, did the post-mortem show that he was killed by the accident or post-accident fire? Thanks.
 
Testimony from first witnesses to arrive at the scene was that he was alive but could not be pulled clear. There was also testimony at trial that when they got the fire out, Corbitt was horribly burned but still alive, and even managed to speak a few words.

Whatever you think of the legal issues - and these always generate lots of opinion, some of it informed and much of it not - the real message (at least to me) from this is to do our best to fly safe and come home alive and in one piece. I don't think any of us can begin to understand the pain Don Corbitt and his family experienced, and they deserve our sympathy, regardless of whether you agree with their lawsuit or not.
 
brianwallis said:
I'm guessing the price of a new airplane goes like this, 50% to insurance and lawyers... and 50% to the aircraft company... I could be wrong. Only if I were King for a day.....
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you are way UNDERESTIMATING the costs for insurance and lawyers. The bigger concern is it continues to grow, and grow, and consume a bigger chunk of the GDP without producing anything. One day no one will produce goods or services because of the potential liability of having employees or the goods or services they produce out on the market. When that day comes and the only money left is in the hands of lawyers the joke will be on them. There will be nothing to buy with their money. No one is left selling any goods or services.

The following has to do with a pager watch I used while flying.

I had a Seiko message watch that worked as a pager. I had dropped the service after a few years since I switched over to a cell phone in the mid to late 90's. Many other people did the same so the service became non-economically viable for Seiko. The watch still worked but I had not used the paid service in a couple years and the watch was basically worn out from normal wear and tear. One day I get a letter from a law firm asking to opt-in to class action lawsuit against Seiko for selling watches that could no longer receive messages. I would get something like $12.00 if they won. I did not opt-in. A year or so later I got a letter and check for $7.00 after law fees for my watch. Great. I did not want it. But I did notice the law firm had made several million in fees. Now what is the desire of Seiko to innovate and try something new? Try it and get whacked? What's the motivation for the law firm to do it again?

This explains why we have so little innovation in GA and much in the EXP area. If for example someone wiped out one of our beloved EFIS pioneers with a lawsuit we could be right back to old steam gauges in a heartbeat as they all crawl back into the ground.

I feel bad about the accident and for his family, but 10.5M? Come on.
 
Lets all take a deep breath here, and not let politics enter into this thread.

The facts are the decision was overturned and that is a good thing. Can we agree on that?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that pilot error still kills. Survivors should not take advantage of that to file lawsuits.

The Maule crash with two deaths last Saturday almost assuredly will be due to pilot error. Imagine that the survivors sue the airport, LOE organizers or whoever else may have money. Maybe the survivors win. The lawyers usually win. But GA suffers.
 
Tomasz said:
...BUT setting all financial things aside a question comes to my mind that I'd like to know answer for. "What is the time I(we) can expect fire truck being on stand by to get to any point of the airport?". The crash happened on the airport perimeter (from NTSB: "...the aircraft impacted a parallel taxiway...") and there was fire truck on duty during the airshow. Yet it took them 3 to 5 minutes to get to the place. So if it ever happens to me how fast can I expect them to get to me lying in fire on taxiway? Is there any rule for that? Any norm?
Click to expand...
I've got news for you, in the event you have an accident, you WILL be the first one there.

Try not to have one and fly safe.

Can I sue the estate of the desired for wasting my money (EAA dues) on a frivolous lawsuit? How about for forcing the cancelation of other lawsuits?
 
My take-aways:

#1 - Never assume that anyone is going to be able to help you if you crash.

#2 - Always, always do a proper preflight.

#3 - I intend to have conversations with my family that in the event of my death while flying, there are to be no lawsuits unless it's clear that a design flaw was concealed by the manufacturer and directly caused my death or in other similar clearcut circumstances.

I have no idea whether having the fire department reach Mr. Corbitt within 3 seconds instead of 3 minutes would have made a difference; none of us will ever know.

TODR
 
Exactly TODR

The amount of time that I fly where I would have rapid EMS support is minute. Even the number of airports that I visit that would provide rapid EMS response is probably only 10%.

I have ZERO concerns about my RV-6A as far as the design. Systems outside the control of Vans are not to be used to blame Vans or the RV design.

The biggest causal factor in crashes is pilot error so I do my best to avoid doing stupid things. It has taken a lot to gain the experience needed to become a better pilot. While I will never be the best pilot, I pride myself on judgment taking over where skills may be lacking.
 
Sad story

This is a very sad story, and I have learned a lot from it. Thanks, John, for sharing it with us, and for offering your insights. Much appreciated.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
#3 - I intend to have conversations with my family that in the event of my death while flying, there are to be no lawsuits unless it's clear that a design flaw was concealed by the manufacturer and directly caused my death or in other similar clearcut circumstances.
Click to expand...

My wife and my attorney both have clear instructions that in the event of my demise in a non-airline aircraft accident, a pre-appointed circle of 3 trusted aviation-savvy pilot friends are to be consulted with all the available information to make a judgement call on whether or not the liability belongs to me, or to another, and to drop the matter entirely if there is not a clear-cut indication of gross negligence by a third party. Unanimous agreement of the 3 is required to proceed with litigation.
 
airguy said:
My wife and my attorney both have clear instructions that in the event of my demise in a non-airline aircraft accident, a pre-appointed circle of 3 trusted aviation-savvy pilot friends are to be consulted with all the available information to make a judgement call on whether or not the liability belongs to me, or to another, and to drop the matter entirely if there is not a clear-cut indication of gross negligence by a third party. Unanimous agreement of the 3 is required to proceed with litigation.
Click to expand...

You sir, are smarter than the average bear.

I think I just might copy your plan for my own use.

Hope you dont mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.