F

fox

Member
Heard a disturbing piece of news yesterday. Seems a builder/flyer sold a several year old Lancair and the purchaser crashed it and was killed. Now his family is suing the builder for several million dollars. Doed anyone know the best way to be protected from such legal action.
Fox
RV7 - EM
Tennessee
 
The best and only way

The best and only way to preclude being a target is to be poor... no assets. Everyone is a potential target.

Other than that, you'd have to consult an attorney. Perhaps the buyer could sign a "Release and Hold Harmless", but all such documents, corporations, can be penetrated. Maybe having all your assets in a trust would help. Here in Florida, your "homestead" (home) is usually shielded (ask OJ).

I'm sure there are hundreds of examples, but here is another:

Two years ago the local EAA chapter had their monthly breakfast at the airport. Four RVs arrived from somewhere else and landed. After they landed, a gent in a Velocity tried to land too close and hit one of them, killing the two in the RV and his passenger in the Velocity. The EAA chapter was named in the suit (although the fact that they were holding a breakfast had nothing to do with the accident). By that logic, if you pulled into the parking lot and were hit by a car the EAA might be sued.

Before you think I am anti-attorney... the attorney is just doing his job. Sue everyone and hope their insurance company will settle for some easy money. Hope you don't have to go to court to prove a tenuous nexus.

Now I've ranted and raved... I can back to the shop and turn a few bolts.
 
cfiidon said:
Perhaps the buyer could sign a "Release and Hold Harmless", but all such documents, corporations, can be penetrated.
Click to expand...

A release and hold harmless is only for the person signing it. If he dies he can not sue (but most laywers can find a reason anyway). The issue is the surviving family sues. No one can sign away another person's rights to sueing so what you need to do is get all the family members of the buyer to also sign hold harmless contracts.
 
Take them to court...Yes, it's expensive to defend but there has never been a successful suit to conclusion on a suing the builder case. Precedents are in your favor. Juries hear that he bought an "experimental" airplane that an amateur built in his garage and they generally don't have a lot of sympathy for the buyer. Unless the family can prove that the seller hid a known defect, causative to the crash, they have little chance of winning. What were the particulars in the case?? Was it the usual "pilot error"?
 
cfiidon said:
The best and only way to preclude being a target is to be poor... no assets. Everyone is a potential target.

Other than that, you'd have to consult an attorney. Perhaps the buyer could sign a "Release and Hold Harmless", but all such documents, corporations, can be penetrated. Maybe having all your assets in a trust would help. Here in Florida, your "homestead" (home) is usually shielded (ask OJ).

I'm sure there are hundreds of examples, but here is another:

Two years ago the local EAA chapter had their monthly breakfast at the airport. Four RVs arrived from somewhere else and landed. After they landed, a gent in a Velocity tried to land too close and hit one of them, killing the two in the RV and his passenger in the Velocity. The EAA chapter was named in the suit (although the fact that they were holding a breakfast had nothing to do with the accident). By that logic, if you pulled into the parking lot and were hit by a car the EAA might be sued.

Before you think I am anti-attorney... the attorney is just doing his job. Sue everyone and hope their insurance company will settle for some easy money. Hope you don't have to go to court to prove a tenuous nexus.

Now I've ranted and raved... I can back to the shop and turn a few bolts.
Click to expand...

+1 and prior legal research shows no one has ever won a case against a builder. The lawyer will probably sniff around for 'deep pockets'. When he doesn't find any, he will back out. It will cost too much for him to pursue.
If the original builder is a pauper, it'll get dropped real fast.
 
I'd be willing to bet a cold adult beverage that the lawyer suing doesn't know the difference between an experimental and a factory built plane.

BTW - I am anti-attorney. What value do they create?
 
I am not familiar with US law.
But a universal shield may be putting the airplane in a company and then the company will sell the airplane. The double passage will not add substantial cost to the transaction, I guess.
Should a problem arise, the company as an individual law subject will be the defendant, unless it is proved that its administrator knew of relevant defects.
And if the company doesn't have value, that's all.
At least, that is what I would do here in Italy.
 
Question along these lines....and I don't know how much airplane insurance works like car insurance: If you totaled your home-built, and assuming the insurance company pays out and keeps the wreck...do you maintain any liability at that point, with whoever ends up buying the pieces?

A bit of an extension...if you sold a home-built, in "almost running" condition as "salvage" in some form of writing...would your potential liability be any less?
 
As far as I know the only way to shield yourself 100% against it is to just not touch an airplane (or fly it or even look at it) to begin with. Putting it under an LLC or similar for the sole purpose of liability could quickly result in an alter ego piercing, selling the pieces as unairworthy is of little good if you built them to begin with, and so on and so forth. Heck, I've seen aviation lawsuits with aluminum mfgr, bolt mfgr, carb mfgr, wire mfgr, mechanic, pilot, pilots and builders spouse/surviving estates, landowners, fuel providers, hose makers, and even carpet providers named in suits because they touched the plane....that's going pretty far up the chain. Not going to get into the lawyer/anti lawyer thing, but I've seen and heard every trick in the book people have to avoid liability and the fact is it's like pregnancy...there is only 1 sure way to avoid it - don't participate in the activities that may result in such situations - but I think many of us enjoy participating in many activities that could have various outcomes, even if we are carefull - so, you have to balance the risk/reward! :)

My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
I guess you wait how ever many years it is (19?) to sell, at which point the aircraft manufacturer (the builder) is no longer is liable. Lawyers will sue anyone for anything if they think they can make money at it. They will sue for cases they know they can't win and don't care if they bankrupt you for having to pay for your defense. There are some great, ethical attorneys who won't file frivolous suits, but there are plenty who will and who take delight at spreading around as much pain as they can, then claim they are "for the people". So, while you may be found not liable, that doesn't mean you won't have tens of thousands in legal fees. At least in Florida, you can give them warning that if they make claims they know to be false or frivolous, you can collect legal fees from the plaintiff as well as the attorney.
 
Jeff R said:
I guess you wait how ever many years it is (19?) to sell, at which point the aircraft manufacturer (the builder) is no longer liable.
Click to expand...


That doesn't work. For one thing, the courts have never clarified whether the statute of repose applies to experimental aircraft or not. But even if it does, the statute is written so that the 18 year "clock" doesn't start until the initial sale of the aircraft. So the builder would get no protection from this statute until 18 years AFTER he/she sold the airplane (if the statute applies at all).
 
Just a few notes.

1. Waiver. Waivers are disfavored documents by most every court in every jurisdiction. This means that they will be strictly interpretted against the drafting party, and the court will undertake a very deep and probing inquiry about the circumstances of the waiver. In the end, the person signing it must does so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

2. LLC's. This form of protection will not protect you for any acts or failure to act undertaken personally. If you personally do something as a builder, pilot, or seller which would create liability, the fact that the plane is registered to a corporate entity will not protect you.

Since the ultimate decision will be made by a jury, there is significant protection to be gained by what amounts to good and honest dealing. One helpful approach is broad and documented disclosure. Disclose everything you know about the plane, build, etc. Disclose to a buyer all the things which you DON'T know. And do it in documented form.

There is a concept in the law called assumption of risk. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But, in general the point is that an Adult in America cannot seek relief for damages which result from a known risk, voluntarily undertaken. There will be some fact questions, so full disclosure at the outset will maximise your protection.

One other thing, I might be humble and careful about the claims I made about a homebuilt I was selling. If you represent to the buyer that the plane was built by a "repeat offender", an expectation of skill and quality has been created. If you represent the plane as "A&P" built, the law will expect that the build meets reasonable care standards FOR A CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT MECHANIC.

This is because we are all expected to act with reasonable care. This means that if you have special skills, training, or experience you are expected to act with reasonable care for a person with those skills.

In the end, there will always be a risk involved with building and selling an aircraft. The risk may be small, but is there. It can be minimised by carefull conduct and exhausting and honest disclosure.

Just my thoughts, and not intended to be legal advice, except that all the general concepts above vary extensively from one jurisdiction to the next. If you are concerned, it is a good idea to hire a lawyer to draft sales and disclosure documents. If you want to know more about these concepts in your own jurisdiction, or get any legal advice you will need to hire a lawyer.
 
Lawyers

In our society, the law imposes a responsibility on everything we do, a responsibility that ultimately is measured by twelve of our fellow citizens. If we do things like building and selling airplanes, we are measured by whether we do those things prudently. Our problem is that a lot of people who might sit on our jury think that building an airplane is a risky thing to do, and, to a large extent, they're right. The only way to avoid that kind of risk is to sit home, do nothing and take no risks. I don't want to live that way, and I bet you don't either.

We can control our potential liabilities to people who buy our airplanes -- to a certain extent -- by contract, but we can't control our liabilities to their survivors, their passengers, or to people on the ground or their survivors and dependents. Don't expect the courts to protect you by maneuvers that are advocated by people you read on the internet.

Here's a plan: if you sell your aircraft, build it prudently, the best way you can. When you sell it, reveal clearly everything about the plane. Consult a lawyer. You wouldn't rely on gossip to diagnose a serious medical condition. Don't rely on gossip to figure out your best course of action regarding the legal system. Different jurisdictions have different laws, so it's not just laws of the place where you are that's involved. It's also the place where your buyer is located, or where it may crash.

Depending on your unique situation, there may be things you can do to protect yourself, but you'll never know without talking to a good lawyer and paying for his advice (you get what you pay for). The best protection is the integrity of your product. The second best is the lack of anything to lose. The third is insurance coverage, if you can find it. Finally, some people can get some protection with legal maneuvering, but that depends on what you want to protect and what lengths you are prepared to go to. For the bulk of us, it's not going to help.

When you're looking for a lawyer, be aware that the practice of law has changed a lot over time. More than ever now, lawyers -- like members of every profession I know of -- follow the money. There aren't very many these days that are willing to sit down with you for an hour or two, give you good advice, and charge you a moderate fee, but they do exist. They're aren't very many because it requires finding out your individual situation, understanding the subject area, and maybe researching the law of several jurisdictions. In other words, it requires diligence, knowledge, judgment, and genuine concern for your personal situation. That's not profitable and takes time -- time that a lot of good lawyers are too busy to take, but if you dig around enough you can find those lawyers. When you do, seek out and take their advice.

BTW: I don't know if statutes of repose exist for experimental aircraft builders in any jurisdiction. I would appreciate a reference to a citation for any such statute if anyone knows of one. I do know that none exist in Texas.
 
Last edited:
Mike,

The General Aviation Revitalization Act is a federal statute of repose for aircraft manufacturers. There is a view that it would apply to the builder of an experimental airplane because the builder is the manufacturer. Of course even here there is not a guarantee, in the sense that Congress clearly had professional manufacturing entities in mind when the wrote the bill. Someone somewhere will argue that it does not apply to homebuilts, and doubtless some judge may buy it.

I am glad we agree on the disclosure strategy. I also agree with you about the dynamics of the profession. But there are numerous lawyers around here (Minnesota) that would certainly work with builders. One strategy might be for the local EAA chapter to fund the creation of general documents, memoranda, and conduct of research. This would make follow on engagements less expensive for each seller, at least with the lawyer who did the original research.

Just my thoughts.
 
General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994

Thanks. I was just looking at the Act, because I had the same question whether the Act applies to experimental aircraft. The analysis is not simple. Interestingly, many states have recently enacted statutes of repose for products liability actions, as well. I haven't looked at the case law on whether any of this legislation applies to experimentals, but I think I'll take a look at that.

John, your idea of having an EAA chapter work with a lawyer to provide individual representation for the members and to reduce costs is an excellent one. I like it.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested in your opinion. I do not practice civil law beyond serving on a Board, but I have alot of faith in juries. I have tried a number of cases as a Felony Prosecutor and defense lawyer. This is why I think the disclosure piece is so critical. I believe that properly instructed, juries get it right much of the time, and ultimately they try to be guided by a sense of fairness.

My friends who are very experienced civil trial lawyers have a hard time imagining a scenario where a jury would hold a home builder liable, unless there is some concealment or hideously stupid behavior.

But acting carefully and fairly from start to finish certainly helps. And having that kind of support from the start may "encourage" the other side to go after someone else early on....plaintiff's lawyers do not like to chase the unwinable or really low probability case.

Just my thoughts as usual.
 
Jconard said:
My friends who are very experienced civil trial lawyers have a hard time imagining a scenario where a jury would hold a home builder liable, unless there is some concealment or hideously stupid behavior.

But acting carefully and fairly from start to finish certainly helps. And having that kind of support from the start may "encourage" the other side to go after someone else early on....plaintiff's lawyers do not like to chase the unwinable or really low probability case.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, but my experience has been that juries have a harder time understanding civil cases than they do criminal cases. That makes it a little harder to predict a result.
 
fox said:
Heard a disturbing piece of news yesterday. Seems a builder/flyer sold a several year old Lancair and the purchaser crashed it and was killed. Now his family is suing the builder for several million dollars. Doed anyone know the best way to be protected from such legal action.
Fox
RV7 - EM
Tennessee
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, and if my source is correct, there has never been one successful case against the homebuilder where he was successfully sued and found at fault. That came as a surprise to me when I first heard it a few weeks ago too. This is something that our instructor shared with us at the Dallas EAA Sport Air workshop, anyway. He wasn?t a lawyer, and maybe he?s mistaken. But the way he explained it, is, the courts tend to hold the pilot responsible, and always resort back to 90% of accidents are pilot error, and not the plane itself.
 
That is correct. As far as I can tell from all the research services available to me. No experimental builder has been held liable. Of course, the earlier you can get out of the suit, the cheaper it is. Basic strategies of disclosure may serve to make you a much less likely target and help to get you out of the suit sooner and cheaper....or even avoid being added in the first place.

Still, one should always proceed carefully. Until less than a decade ago, no one had sued a cigarette manufacturer, and most thought it was silly to claim that smokers were defrauded from realizing that lighting a dead plant on fire and breathing it in on purpose was harmful to their health. That has clearly changed.

Always pays to be careful.
 
How to sell an airplane

I have an interesting document that attempts to shield the seller from such mishaps. I am happy to email it to you if you'd like to read it. I suspect you can find similar documents on the EAA site.

No, I am not a lawyer but I'm not a lawyer basher either. When all else fails, lawyers can and do save the day. Like any other professional, they vary in quality and qualification.
 
I bought my engine from a guy who was worried about the liability associated with selling his One Design. He simply took the entire plane apart and sold it in pieces on Barnstormers. Everything from the prop to the metal tube fuse to the tail feathers was for sale. The engine I bought was literally unbolted at the firewall and bolted to a wooden crate for shipment. Its a thought, although the One Design looks easier to break down than a RV.

Now I have a One Design motor mount cluttering up my shop...
 
a few points...

1. This is a good discussion, but above all the paperwork and legal-eze being discussed here, the point remains... You can be sued for anything. So even though everybody involved has signed whatever, you can still spend thousands++++ of dollars proving your point.

2. As far as parting out your plane to reduce liability, I would argue it does the opposite. For every part you sell, that's a potential lawsuit.

3. Case in point: Team Rocket and it's owner, Mark Frederick, have been involved in a nasty lawsuit over one of his F1 kits. A guy died flying an F1 that he himself built when the vertical stab departed the airplane. The crash investigation revealed he had left a few of the attach bolts out (NTSB report here). His family is suing Mark because they are saying the build instructions were not adequate. The crash happened in 2002, and best I can tell, the lawsuit has not been resolved. How much money do you think he has spent defending himself? A quick web search shows that just trying to decide where to hold the trial resulted in a Texas Supreme Court case (HERE).

While not exactly the same, it just proves my point #1. Could RV-3 builders claim the same thing if they crash? At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a busines owner that deals with contracts a lot. With personal contracts, I like to include a paragraph without all the legal-eze that describes the transaction and the state of mind of both parties. If anything goes to court, it gives the jury/judge a good high level overview of how the parties felt when they signed it. If I'm ever held in front of a jury and made to look like a crazy risk taker that builds a plane in his garage and sells it to anybody that will pay him, as I imagine the opposing lawyer would do, I'd like the jury to hear what the dead pilot thought. He obviously didn't think it was all that bad and was ready to assume the risk. I'm imagining one for an RV sale would have a few sentences something like ?I understand that this is a very risky purchase, and that this airplane I?m buying wasn?t built in a factory or to any kind of standard or by any skilled craftsman. In fact, it was built in Joe?s home garage by Joe, who has no special training for airplane building. While no problems have come up in the first 450 hours, I know that a problem could pop up at any time at no fault of the builder. I am buying this plane as-is with no warranties or promises. I have inspected it and test flown it, and all appears to be well."

--STEPPING ONTO SOAP BOX
Please talk to your loved ones about the things that happen after you crash, and urge them to talk to a trusted PILOT friend of yours before making any decisions about suing. My feeling is that MOST lawsuits filed by the dead pilot's loved ones would make the pilot sick. Even good pilots mess up from time to time, but that doesn't mean everybody that touched the airplane should be sued.
--STEPPING OFF SOAP BOX
 
Google this subject for more guidance

It is truly sad to hear that people believe they have to go to such extremes including the complete disassembly of an airplane to avoid litigation.

In many states, the formation of an LLC provides a layer of insulation between the builder and the buyer but good records, quality work, good maintenance, thorough log books, and extensive pre-purchase, documented inspections should dissuade unwarranted legal attacks.

I come into contact with lots of lawyers who typically evaluate the matter carefully before taking a case. They don't want to lose or look foolish in court. Radio talk show hosts, on the other hand, all-too-often stir emotions but then, they are in the business of selling advertising, not providing truth.
 
rph142 said:
I bought my engine from a guy who was worried about the liability associated with selling his One Design. He simply took the entire plane apart and sold it in pieces on Barnstormers...
Click to expand...

The interesting part about that is that it really doesn't absolve the builder of any liability. If that person was asked, in court, under oath whether or not he built those parts he'd either have to say yes or perjure himself. So why destroy a perfectly good airplane?

As others have mentioned, in this country you can be sued by anyone for anything. This is balanced by the fact that we have no record of any builder of an amateur-built aircraft ever being successfully sued, but it costs money anytime someone brings suit against you even if you win.

The only way to have no exposure is to never get involved in the first place. I think we all agree that that's not the answer. Well, maybe for some it is, but not for me!
 
Jconard said:
.....My friends who are very experienced civil trial lawyers have a hard time imagining a scenario where a jury would hold a home builder liable, unless there is some concealment or hideously stupid behavior.
Click to expand...
The very,very big problem with the US civil system (created by lawyers in legislative bodies across the country) is that it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in fees to one of your peers just to get to the point where the jury *might* see it my way.
 
1. Forming an LLC does not protect you from things you do or don't do. You are the builder, you are the pilot, entity ownership of the plane will not protect you for behavior and liabilities in those spheres.

2. Sorry that some cases seem to be a pretty big waste of time. In many States, the right to have facts decided by a jury, in a civil case is guaranteed by the State constitution.

3. I feel for mark, an even more clear example in the Governor Carnahan case where the NTSB determination that the vacuum pumps didn't fail did not save parker hannafin.

The point to all this is, there is risk to selling a plane you built, it cannot be eliminated, but it can be reduced.

And lawyers, particularly trial lawyers and litigators, are a bit like a tourniquet. You hope you will never need one. But if you do, you will be glad to have one.
 
I don't have the answer, but....

I really don?t want to get on my soapbox about this, but this is a sore subject at our company.

Unfortunately that is the way it is right now. Being a manufacture, liability insurance is out of the question (for us little guys) if we want to stay in business. Plus the last time we checked on that (about 8 years ago) it was not available to us at any cost.

Being involved in four suits so far (one still pending), the cost to defend ones self is a big chunk of $ even when you are not at fault (so far we haven?t been) but the money is gone and a lot of times it gets down to what does it cost to go to court to defend the case vs. a pay off. But in running the business unfortunately it always comes down to $?s not what is correct. We have tried to stand the moral ground and it has worked once so far but still at an expense that I don?t what to think about.

I don?t know what the answer is. Some type of tort reform is necessary if people want to have choices and not just one player in the industry. It?s too bad we cannot recover our expenses for defending a case when we are not at fault. Maybe that would stop some of this action.

We have a real passion for what we do. Think about that responsibility the next time you fly your plane that you built. Think about the small business in the US that has a passion for the experimental aviation industry that you helped by purchasing their products. And discuss the ramifications with your loved ones if the unfortunate would happen.

Don
 
The story about the guy forgetting to bolt the V-stab on his Rocket has reminded me of a story I read last week in Fine Woodworking Magazine. I'm sure many of you have heard of the SawStop table saw that detects flesh and stops in a tiny fraction of a second. If you haven't seen it in action, its worth a look on Youtube just so you can say "wow, that's amazing!" as they slide a perfectly good hotdog into the blade. Well, evidently some guy was putting in some flooring and needed a saw, so he went out and bought a tabletop Ryobi. He then went home and cut the heck out of his hand. Most folks scream for the wife, get it sewn up, and be more careful next time. Not this guy. He went out and SUCCESSFULLY sued Ryobi for not having "flesh detection" on its line of saws. Never mind the fact that the saws that DO have it cost about a grand more than the cheapie that he bought. Un-Freakin'-Believable.
 
Just because your named in a lawsuit doesn't mean you have to pay up. It's up to a jury to award a settlement and most juries are reasonable and intelligent. I think if you make it clear that you are selling an amatuer built, experimental plane that you built in your garage, most juries are going to reason that the buyer was taking a risk in making the purchase. That being said, I gave up my inspection authorization (IA) because I didn't think it was worth the risk.
 
Fuggedaboudit!

Hey Fellas:

Disclaimer:
The two attorneys adding input to this thread sound very reasonable, possibly even down-to-earth, but neither are opposing me. I find that position changes their personalities considerably. So fellas, don't take my attitude regarding attorney experiences personally.

The earlier description of the lawsuit I am in is mostly correct, with the important exception that a hired gun built the plane. It sure seems to me that this fact would shield me, but this is not the case.

Assumption of risk (pilot), due diligence on the part of the builder, the facts of the case, MISSING EVIDENCE -- it's all BULL. The problem is that the facts do not matter.

$50K spent so far, with another $75K+ in front of me, before I to get to speak to the jury. If I prevail, I get to experience the appeal process! Oh boy! I cannot ask for my attorney fees to be paid by the plaintiffs, if I prevail. If the plaintiffs prevail, I stand to lose everything I have, including my land, thanks to our fair city annexing us last year.

The minimum I can lose is my entire retirement funding (see fees listed above).

Someone tell me how this is remotely fair?

As Don mentioned, liability insurance was not an option for me, and many other small businesses.

So if someone wants to sue you, and let's say they have $$$ on their side to pay their attorney ('winning' is not their intent): you are in deep trouble, you cannot 'win', and worse yet, you cannot escape.

My cynical take? Don't hire an attorney (~$2400/day, with no guarantees). I can tell you where that will take you. Without an attorney on your payroll, the plaintiff's attorney has to deal with you, a mere civilian, and this is most dis-tasteful to attorneys, considering their elite position in society. If you also have few assets to grab, they MIGHT walk away, unless there is vengence in the equation. See: '$$$ on their side', above.

I try to be cynical about this stuff, but it's just never enough...

So, sell your airplane, but get the family to sign the waiver too! ALL of 'em! Get the family dog to put his pawprint on one too! Heck, it might work.

Carry on!
Mark
 
No one has mentioned

asset protection. A viable method of removing the "deep pocket" if you have one. I am not an attorney (I do stay in Holiday Inn Express when I go to Oshkosh and my wife and half my relatives are attorneys) and I will say that I am probably more like the cobblers child without shoes (our estate planning needs to be redone). We all should have estate planning if we own anything and in that process asset protection for these events can be taken into account.

I think several people in this thead said before, if there is no money there is no suit. Your plane owned by another entity does not guarantee you have eliminated your liability, but removing your assets to trusts and other entities removes all the good stuff they want to get.

I have just begun my 7a and have not looked at this issue for myself, and I wonder if my homeowners policy or umbrella policy would provide coverage to defend me in a suit.

All that said, my experience in civil court has been less than triumphant even with all the legal help I get and that I was in the right. No one can predict a jury, or a judge for that matter, especially where I live in Cook County, Illinios (warmly refered to as Crook County). We all know of suits that when you know the facts and the outcome, boggle the mind.

The only way to win in the legal game is not to play. There is no JUSTICE only LAW!
 
Last edited:
disclosure important in liability- Rv-3 a good example.

Jconard said:
Until less than a decade ago, no one had sued a cigarette manufacturer, and most thought it was silly to claim that smokers were defrauded from realizing that lighting a dead plant on fire and breathing it in on purpose was harmful to their health. That has clearly changed.
Click to expand...

Not correct, many had sued, just not successfully until this last decade, which brings us back to the importance of disclosure. A game changer for the tobacco battle was when the plaintiff could show fairly clearly a pattern on the part the defendant of hiding relevant research findings.

DBone mentioned the RV-3.....

The early 3 is a demonstration in the value of disclosure. I suspect it's a part of why Vans Aircraft is still in business. The documentation and history on the non-B, RV-3's spar shows a genuine deficiency. Vans communicated the known problems through a series of publications. Even though the bulletins so much as admit to engineering miscalculations, the communications likely reduced liability rather than increased it. The publications disclosed the weakness to affected parties, warned against high G maneuvers, and and went beyond that, to eventually describe the fixes in which the early 3 could be updated to meet the original design goal of being capable of moderate aerobatics.
This situation had to be a minefield for Van's, but kudos for their navigation through it. I'm not sure what kind of "incentives" the FAA or lawsuits (if any) created for Vans Aircraft so I am certain I don't have a complete picture. What I do have, as a current owner of an old 3, is a clear picture of what can be done to make the airplane safer. As a reasonable person, I have no interest in blaming them for a spar failure. I would feel differently, had they refused to retest the wing spars and attributed all the spar failures to simple pilot error.

Unfortunately, it isn't this simple for F1Boss. The situation is one that can likely only be addressed by economies of scale, as in being big enough that one can defend frivolous lawsuits without it consuming to much of the cash flow.

For the future... maybe an entity specifically "hired" to do the instruction manual. Assets of the company- 2 laptop computers, a camera, calipers, and etc. Not much of a prize. It might create a bit more work for the plaintiff's attorney.

Are there any experimental aviation suppliers teaming up to create an insurance pool or at least get some kind of advantage that comes with size and buying power?
 
F1Boss said:
If I prevail, I get to experience the appeal process! Oh boy! I cannot ask for my attorney fees to be paid by the plaintiffs, if I prevail.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

As soon as you are declared not guilty/innocent/not at fault etc, the plaintiff should be mandated to pay all of your defense expenses----all, not just lawyer fees.

F1Boss said:
Someone tell me how this is remotely fair?
Click to expand...

Cant tell you that, dont want to lie.
 
Mike S said:
Therein lies the crux of the problem.

As soon as you are declared not guilty/innocent/not at fault etc, the plaintiff should be mandated to pay all of your defense expenses----all, not just lawyer fees.
Click to expand...

I might agree...with limitations. ie. So the defending party with deep pockets (ie. the reverse situation) can't go and spend as much as possible just to make you terrified of losing a valid case. This could make it very tough for the small guy fighting a large entity. I don't know...

Anyway....some interesting debate on "loser pays" from a variety of angles:

http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2006/11/some_reasons_to_oppose_loser_p.html

http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2005/argument_kritzer_novdec05.msp

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/24...igation-and-the-law-blogs-in-box/tab/article/

Personally, I'd just like to be able to make a transaction that says "we both agree to XXX right now with sound mind, including you knowing what you are getting into" and not be able to later be sued about it later.

[Mods, please kill if this is not appropriate.]
 
Rick, I did not say "looser pays"---I said innocent/not at fault folks should not have to be burdened by costs.

Anyway, this thread is drifting quite a bit ( and, yes I helped it to drift:eek: ), so lets all try to get it back on track.

By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "Personally, I'd just like to be able to make a transaction that says "we both agree to XXX right now with sound mind, including you knowing what you are getting into" and not be able to later be sued about it later."
 
I wonder if an umbrella policy would shield or at least cover the expense for amatuer builders? I know it saved my co-worker when his teenage daughter was involved with an accident.
 
I have an umbrella policy...

.inquired of my insurance company and was told specifically that anything aviation related was excluded.

The best advice running through this entire thread is full disclosure of what one knows and doesn't know. The "doesn't know part" is why the aircraft is being sold "as-is" regardless of how proud the owner/builder is of his craftmanship.

LarryT


RV8RIVETER said:
I wonder if an umbrella policy would shield or at least cover the expense for amatuer builders? I know it saved my co-worker when his teenage daughter was involved with an accident.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for all the informative responses. I had no idea my question would result in so many replies.
Fox Smith
RV7 EM
QB wings & fuse received
 
Camillo said:
I am not familiar with US law.
But a universal shield may be putting the airplane in a company and then the company will sell the airplane. The double passage will not add substantial cost to the transaction, I guess.
Should a problem arise, the company as an individual law subject will be the defendant, unless it is proved that its administrator knew of relevant defects.
And if the company doesn't have value, that's all.
At least, that is what I would do here in Italy.
Click to expand...

Someone may have already responded to this, but if they didn't...

No "company" can be the "builder" of an experimental aircraft. It must be a PERSON.

You probably can and should buy some kind of lifetime liability insurance for the builder of the airplane and keep the fact hidden (e.g. create a company which exists solely for the purpose of buying liability insurance to protect YOU, and hide it as deep as you can). That way if someone ever does successfully sue YOU, once the damage is awarded you can THEN refer it to the insurance. Most courts will throw out any second attempt at a lawsuit simply because they learn you were insured for more than they got...
 
jnorris said:
That doesn't work. For one thing, the courts have never clarified whether the statute of repose applies to experimental aircraft or not. But even if it does, the statute is written so that the 18 year "clock" doesn't start until the initial sale of the aircraft. So the builder would get no protection from this statute until 18 years AFTER he/she sold the airplane (if the statute applies at all).
Click to expand...

Create a company and sell it immediately after you build it. Then it starts the clock.
 
breister said:
No "company" can be the "builder" of an experimental aircraft. It must be a PERSON.
Click to expand...

That is actually not true. There are quite a few amateur-built aircraft on the registry these days showing a corporation as the "builder". There is no strict requirement that the "builder" be an individual's name.

You will need individuals' names in block III of the Eligibility Statement (FAA Form 8130-12), but the "builder" can indeed be a corporation or LLC.
 
People quoting "jury of your peers" is a nice concept but otherwise not reality. Think about how many billable hours there are in the years before you ever see that jury - can you afford it? That's what the lawyers will want to know. Don at Airflow has it exactly right and speaks from personal experience. It is mostly all about how much money you have or willing to lose. Has little to do with right or wrong. It is not how the system was intended, but alas, that is how the system works.

Has anyone seen the movie Flash of Genius? My first thought after seeing that movie was, how often there are no winners after a lawsuit. The engineer won his lawsuit in the end, but after losing his wife, his children, his sanity, his life?

The only guaranteed winners are the lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.