Lawsuits Filed in Deadly Seaplane Accident Near Seattle

The ugly accidents I know of generated appx 2.5 lawsuits per body. No real surprise here.
 
I just glad they sued the aircraft manufacturer for a design flaw that appears to have materialized after 56 years.
 
Have to wonder if had undergone any maintenance. Perhaps it was not reassembled correctly? If not, and this is from the factory, it is going to cost the manufacturer. And probably rightfully so. No?
 
Doesn’t GARA protect the manufacturer from lawsuits after the plane reaches a certain age, 18 maybe?
 
ateamer said:
Doesn’t GARA protect the manufacturer from lawsuits after the plane reaches a certain age, 18 maybe?
Click to expand...
Being a US law, I don't believe it protects foreign manufacturers.
 
Bell206 said:
Being a US law, I don't believe it protects foreign manufacturers.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the last time DeHavilland touched that plane most of us were not yet alive so hopefully small chance of success in that aspect.

However, I was an alternate on a medical malpractice trial last year and finding out how the seated jury voted guilty after my dismissal made me wonder if they sat through the 8 days of testimony I did. After that experience I‘m sure this suit will succeed No matter how inane. :rolleyes:
 
Bell206 said:
Being a US law, I don't believe it protects foreign manufacturers.
Click to expand...
The final law exempted manufacturers of general aviation aircraft (aircraft with less than 20 passenger seats, not operating scheduled commercial service), and their component parts, from liability for any of their products that were 18 years old or older at the time of the accident.

Further, the statute is a "rolling" statute: The "clock" resets when modified or replacement parts are installed, so that a 20-year-old aircraft may still be the object of a successful suit against a manufacturer if it contains manufacturer modifications or parts installed within the last 18 years

I didn't see anything about a foreign manufacturer. Being a part 135 operator I would imagine the scheduled commercial service would NOT apply. I suppose potentially the rolling clock could have been reset.

It would be a very steep hill to climb to prove DHC/Viking withheld a flaw. We all know this was probably a maintenance issue that was missed by the operator. This is akin to the Vans lawsuit where the nitwit used rtv on fuel lines and the family unsuccessfully sued vans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top