[Geico266]

Just for sake of discussion lads, what do you suggest we do to fix the system? Remember, it works both ways, there has to be a balance. Many people have had to use the "system" to get what was legitimately owed.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

1. Looser pays all legal bills, both sides.
2. If you sue someone "fraudulently" (seeking monetary damages or criminal charges) then the party bring the fraudulent charges will be sentenced or charged the amount they were seeking as relief to the persecuted party.
3. Eliminate punitive damages.

 

[JHines]

Interesting thread

Am I missing something here? Has there been a raft of unfounded lawsuits against experimental builders?

The gist I get from this thread is that we all want the benefits of being deemed the manufacturer of our planes, but none of the responsibility.

Interesting perspective. In essence it's saying we're willing to bet our lives on the quality of our construction, but not our wallets?

Anyone here maintain his or her own automobile? Work on the suspension? The brakes? If so, do you send the car to the crusher instead of selling it?

 

[Geico266]

Am I missing something here? Has there been a raft of unfounded lawsuits against experimental builders?

The gist I get from this thread is that we all want the benefits of being deemed the manufacturer of our planes, but none of the responsibility.

Interesting perspective. In essence it's saying we're willing to bet our lives on the quality of our construction, but not our wallets?

Anyone here maintain his or her own automobile? Work on the suspension? The brakes? If so, do you send the car to the crusher instead of selling it?

Excellent point, 99% of what we worry about never comes true.

 

[JHines]

1. Loosers pay all legal bills.

Plenty of situations where that's unfair, too. It's just a fact of life that there are transaction costs and uncertainties involved in bringing a set of facts before an objective 3rd party to resolve a dispute. As my law partner puts it, dispures are rarely straight-up "Jesus vs. Hitler" situations. I know that's hard to accept, especially for engineers and technical types. My undergrad degree was in ME, and it was hard for me to accept that you just can't feed in a set of facts to some supercomputer and have it spit out the answer after crunching on it for 5 minutes.

 

[JHines]

1. Looser pays all legal bills, both sides.
2. If you sue someone "fraudulently" (seeking monetary damages or criminal charges) then the party bring the fraudulent charges will be sentenced or charged the amount they were seeking as relief to the persecuted party.
3. Eliminate punitive damages.

To a large exent, truly frivolous suits are already thrown out based on lack of substance.

Your #2 and #3 (partially) exist already, to take care of #1. Want some real change? Have judges start enforcing the existing procedural rules (it's called "Rule 11") against the lawyers.

 

[Mike S]

I disagree with the looser pay all.

Whoever caused the action, should always pay any costs they incur. And, if they fail to prevail, they should also pay any costs of the other side.

 

[Danny7]

Am I missing something here? Has there been a raft of unfounded lawsuits against experimental builders?

The gist I get from this thread is that we all want the benefits of being deemed the manufacturer of our planes, but none of the responsibility.

Interesting perspective. In essence it's saying we're willing to bet our lives on the quality of our construction, but not our wallets?

Anyone here maintain his or her own automobile? Work on the suspension? The brakes? If so, do you send the car to the crusher instead of selling it?

to your first two questions:

NO. NO.

guys on the internet like to discuss things, and they figure typing is free since they already paid for teh internets.

 

[Auburntsts]

True, there's not a lot of suits pending against experimentals, but if it happens to you will you really care how many total cases there are/were? Am I paranoid? Maybe, but there's already survivors from the US Air Hudson River crash trying to sue US Air due to mental anguish.

 

[N395V]

The aircraft can be flown to and from an exhibition listed on the program letter, and for "proficiency" purposes. For this type of exhibition aircraft (Group IV) proficiency flights must take off and land only at the aircraft's home base. Not much latitude there, huh!

Cheers!

Actually you can fulfill the notification requirement by faxing a list of every airshow or event in the U.S to your local FSDO at the beginning of every year. You do not need their permission nor do you even need a rwesponse from them.

If you wish to attend an event not on the original list all you need do is fax them again before takeoff.

Any other flight you make is considered for proficiency and legal. There used to be a distance restriction from the home airport fo proficiency flights but this has been waived. You do not need to make all takeoffs and landings from your home airport.

In short the only hassle is faxing the event list. Otherwise it is legal to use like any other experimental.

 

[N395V]

True, there's not a lot of suits pending against experimentals, but if it happens to you will you really care how many total cases there are/were? Am I paranoid? Maybe, but there's already survivors from the US Air Hudson River crash trying to sue US Air due to mental anguish.

The only sure way to avoid liability is to destroy the plane. Do not even sell components as you could be sued for them.

 

[Danny7]

True, there's not a lot of suits pending against experimentals, but if it happens to you will you really care how many total cases there are/were? Am I paranoid? Maybe, but there's already survivors from the US Air Hudson River crash trying to sue US Air due to mental anguish.

re paranoid, depends.

what's your financial statement? are you worth going after?

us air has substantial assets for people to go after, or insurance to cover such claims. don't compare a commercial example to your personal life. Do you have a plane built you are thinking of selling?

 

[Auburntsts]

I wasn't trying to compare myself to US Air, and no I'm not trying to sell anything right now--this was all hypothetical. The point I was trying to make with that example was that in today's hyper litigious society people are willing to sue at the drop of a hat. As a result, saying it doesn't happen very often is of little consolation if it happens to you. Based upon what I've leaned from the EAA articles, the Kit plane article, and posts here at VAF, now I do think the chances being sued are remote, and there are mitigation strategies (ie sales contracts, insurance, etc) to help you out if you are.

The idea for my original post was to find a perfect way to release an owner of an E-AB aircraft from liability after the sale without having to turn the aircraft into scrap. It would appear that such a "way" does not exist.