Liabilities of the A/HB builders

vintage cessna said:
Fortunately, so far, no one has taken much of a ride. Attorneys don't get paid unless they win, and if they don't think they can win they don't file. The client, when told this is not going to finance it.
Click to expand...

Defense attorneys get paid win or lose.
 
wsuffa said:
Defense attorneys get paid win or lose.
Click to expand...

Yes, but plaintiffs attorneys will only accept a contingency case if they think they can win. If an attorney won't take the tort on a contingency then the plaintiff often won't continue the suit because they'll be throwing good money after bad on a gamble the pro they are hiring to play their hand isn't willing to take with his own money. If there is no suit filed, there is no defense attorney fee.
 
vintage cessna said:
Severe thread drift, I know. But it would be interesting to explore the liability of selling an old Part 23 airplane VS an AB-EXP.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep trying to compare to selling?

We're talking about the liability of the builder/manufacturer?

And if this "experienced aviation attorney" for the EAA has successfully defended many suits, where is the case law showing this?
 
Henning said:
Do you consider Apple the manufacturer of an iPad, or the company in China that physically built it?
Click to expand...

Yes. :)

People here assume that there is only one manufacturer. I don't understand why. The fact of the matter, there can be multiple manufacturers (depending upon each state's products, law, of course.) I know in my state, there can be multiple manufacturers.
 
vintage cessna said:
Right , unless they are called to give expert testimony or explain what a regulation means.

I'm done with this.

On one hand , there are people saying, with no case law to back it, or even reliable anecdotes, that a home builder is a manufacturer.

On the other hand, there is an experienced aviation attorney , who has successfully represented home builders in legal actions, saying they are not.

If I had to make a decision, which hand wins?
Click to expand...


The FAA won't give expert opinions in a civil action between private parties.

Regulations are interpreted by judges. This is a question of law. Expert testimony is not admissible on interpretation of law.

I gave you a statutory definition of a manufacturer. Why do you discount it out of hand because it's not a case? I also gave an example of a case interpreting that statute? Why do you falsely claim I gave no case law to back it up?
 
PPC1052 said:
I gave you a statutory definition of a manufacturer. Why do you discount it out of hand because it's not a case? I also gave an example of a case interpreting that statute? Why do you falsely claim I gave no case law to back it up?
Click to expand...

Because some lawyer, with a vested interest in people becoming builders, told him that there was not liability to building...so he will now reject any evidence to the contrary.
 
mvferrer said:
Obtained from the EAA's website. Note the last paragraph. Don't know if it's true or not. I've done some searching in 8130.2 but couldn't find anything relevant.
Is the 24 month transponder test (per FAR 91.217 & 91.413) required for a homebuilt aircraft? How about the pitot static test (FAR 91.411)? If so, can this be done by the builder of the aircraft?

If you have a transponder installed in your aircraft, you must comply with the testing requirements. The requirements of 14 CFR 91.215, 91.217, and 91.411 apply to all aircraft with such equipment installed, regardless of certification category.

If you fly your aircraft under IFR, you must comply with the pitot/static test requirements called out in 14 CFR 91.411. As with transponders, this regulation applies to all aircraft, regardless of certification category.

The FAR’s authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests However, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA’s definition of a manufacturer. The FAA, in Order 8130.2, defines a manufacturer as a Production Approval Holder (PAH). Some examples of a PAH would be the holder of a Production Certificate (PC), a Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA), and Technical Standards Order Authorization (TSOA). An amateur builder does not fit this definition. Thus, the amateur-builder cannot perform the transponder and pitot/static tests on his/her homebuilt.

​
Click to expand...

Everyone should be careful not to confuse definitions here. Just because there is a "manufacturer" for purposes of FAA regulations doesn't mean that there isn't another definition that applies when a court is applying product liability law. The court is going to apply the definition applicable in products liability law in determining who is liable for faulty construction, not the FAA regulatory one.
 
Last edited:
I think TI (who assembled parts made by other companies into starter units for compressors) would agree based on their recent experience defending a PL suit in the billions with a B resulting from fires caused from overheating.

PPC1052 said:
Yes. :)

People here assume that there is only one manufacturer. I don't understand why. The fact of the matter, there can be multiple manufacturers (depending upon each state's products, law, of course.) I know in my state, there can be multiple manufacturers.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I think TI (who assembled parts made by other companies into starter units for compressors) would agree based on their recent experience defending a PL suit in the billions with a B resulting from fires caused from overheating.
Click to expand...

But, but, but...the FAA regulations don't say they're manufacturers!
 
If the people that own the Cozy want to haul it off the junk yard rather than accept the cash that Tom would offer, that is their choice .

This is a country , after all , that destroys automobiles based on an unproven economic theory.
 
vintage cessna said:
If the people that own the Cozy want to haul it off the junk yard rather than accept the cash that Tom would offer, that is their choice .

This is a country , after all , that destroys automobiles based on an unproven economic theory.
Click to expand...

After thought, That assembly isn't even an aircraft until the FAA says it is..

So, when would they do that? When they place an airworthiness certificate on it.

who would ask them to do that ? the owner / builder.
 
Tom-D said:
After thought, That assembly isn't even an aircraft until the FAA says it is..

So, when would they do that? When they place an airworthiness certificate on it.

who would ask them to do that ? the owner / builder.
Click to expand...

Tom, you don't understand . The lawyers will decide what an airplane is, not the FAA.
 
Henning said:
No, 2 lawyers will try to convince a jury, the jury will decide.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a question of fact, not a question of law.

If you build an RV and don't register it, it's still an airplane.
 
vintage cessna said:
When they have it all sorted out will you let us know? We've been waiting 40 years for the final verdict.
Click to expand...

But I thought you had your decision, from a vested interest lawyer from the EAA?

Each case decided by a jury happens on a case-by-case basis.
 
vintage cessna said:
Tom, you don't understand . The lawyers will decide what an airplane is, not the FAA.
Click to expand...

No. The issue is whether it is a "product"; not whether it's an airplane. It doesn't have to be an airplane for liability to attach for defective manufacture.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
No. The issue is whether it is a "product"; not whether it's an airplane. It doesn't have to be an airplane for liability to attach for defective manufacture.
Click to expand...

But, but, but...E-AB is different! Ancient principles of law don't apply to them, because, well, they're just different.
 
JeffDG said:
But, but, but...E-AB is different! Ancient principles of law don't apply to them, because, well, they're just different.
Click to expand...

Oh, but they do. Which is why there is no case law for you to point to.
 
vintage cessna said:
Oh, but they do. Which is why there is no case law for you to point to.
Click to expand...

You keep claiming some self-interested EAA lawyer has defened a bunch of builders, but you don't seem to have any case law either.

You know, there's never been a 3 fingered, two toed person convicted of murder, so cut some fingers and toes off if you wanna kill someone, because there's no case law, right?
 
JeffDG said:
You keep claiming some self-interested EAA lawyer has defened a bunch of builders, but you don't seem to have any case law either.

You know, there's never been a 3 fingered, two toed person convicted of murder, so cut some fingers and toes off if you wanna kill someone, because there's no case law, right?
Click to expand...

That is what the aviation attorney claimed. Are you saying he is a liar?

If the lawyers, after examining the facts, decided they couldn't prevail under the existing law, how could there be any cases to reference?

Perhaps there is some case law involving other types of hobbyists, I don't know.
 
vintage cessna said:
That is what the aviation attorney claimed. Are you saying he is a liar?
Click to expand...

I would say that there is a high likelihood something was lost in translation. Empirical evidence on this forum points to that as a strong possibility.
 
vintage cessna said:
That is what the aviation attorney claimed. Are you saying he is a liar?

If the lawyers, after examining the facts, decided they couldn't prevail under the existing law, how could there be any cases to reference?

Perhaps there is some case law involving other types of hobbyists, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I would like to see a transcript of this webinar to determine what this attorney alledgedly said.
 
EAA has a ton of webinars in their archives. Can you link to the one you are referring to? At a minimum, give us the title and/or date?
 
I think I found it.

Bullet point 1: "You cannot absolutely avoid the possibility of litigation."
 
PPC1052 said:
EAA has a ton of webinars in their archives. Can you link to the one you are referring to? At a minimum, give us the title and/or date?
Click to expand...

"The liability of selling your home built". May 2010
 
PPC1052 said:
I think I found it.

Bullet point 1: "You cannot absolutely avoid the possibility of litigation."
Click to expand...


Sure you can...... spend every dime you have and let the bastards try to get 11 cents......
 
Well, how about this?

"We don't advise dissasembly-- that's why we call it a 'myth of escaping liability' because if there's-- if you have been negligent in construction something, designing something, putting it together, the liability is still going to follow those parts." (50:38)
 
The EAA attorney says none of the things he alledgedly said ;)
 
In fairness to Vintage Cessna, the presenter does say something to the effect that an amature builder cannot be a manufacturer, and therefore is not liable under products liability. Frankly, I think that advice is reckless. As I have said previously, products liability law varies from state to state. It may not be true in every state. I don't believe that is true as the act is written in my state. The webinar should have made this point clear.
 
vintage cessna said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

The only cases he talked about were people who bought a plane from a builder and then tried to sue the builder.

He was very careful to point out that the contract and release have to be signed bu buyer and spouse and won't do anything to protect against claims from minor children (and third parties).
 
weilke said:
The only cases he talked about were people who bought a plane from a builder and then tried to sue the builder.

He was very careful to point out that the contract and release have to be signed bu buyer and spouse and won't do anything to protect against claims from minor children (and third parties).
Click to expand...

You need to distinguish between what I said he said, and when I may have been giving my own opinion. The whole idea is about reducing risk, not eliminating it. And then deciding if it is worth the risk.
 
vintage cessna said:
You need to distinguish between what I said he said, and when I may have been giving my own opinion. The whole idea is about reducing risk, not eliminating it. And then deciding if it is worth the risk.
Click to expand...

And nobody here has said anything different.

The litigation risk is there, historic record suggests that it is low. The decision on whether to accept that level of risk is up to a builder or his estate.

That is far different from saying that 'you can't get sued because experimentals are different' and other nonsense that made it into the discussion on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top