RV-10 Build Error & LOC Lawsuit Dismissed

RV10flyer

RV10flyer

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
1,940
Location
Ohio
Display Name
Display name:
RV10flyer
We surely do not need to go down that path. Builder's know the FAA's definition from Day 1..."the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by person(s) who undertook the construction project solely for their own EDUCATION or recreation."

There is an entire forum just for the "education" part, where ONLY RV-related topics are allowed. No questions by this builder concerning the use of red high-temp silicone in fuel lines ever came up. There are many ex-mil aircraft techs and A&P's like myself over there to help.

There are reasons why us pilots are taught not to stretch the glide, to practice emergency procedures as often as possible and to perform a thorough SOLO test flights after all maintenance or repairs. I'd much rather hit the rough terrain, water or trees upright and under control at 54 kias than in a stall/spin.

My condolences to the family of the pilot and his granddaughter.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Vans-Aircraft-Lawsuit-Dismissed-228546-1.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140531X15032&ntsbno=WPR14FA218&akey=1
 
Last edited:
I don't understand.

The guy was told not to slob silicone on it, he did so anyway, as a result he crashed, and this was vans fault how?

How is this any diffrent from someone being told not to get drunk and fly, guy decides F' it, drinks and flys, gets killed.

Shoulda known better, was even warned, carried on, died.


It's horrible that there was a loss of life, but the only one to blame was the guy piling the silicone on.
 
Last edited:
RV10flyer said:
Thankfully! We surely do not need to go down that path.
Click to expand...

I don't know if "Thankfully" is the right adverb here. The first sentence states (emphasis mine):

"A $35 million lawsuit filed against Van’s Aircraft, characterized by Van’s as an attack on the kitplane industry as a whole, was settled by the parties late last year."

Then at the end of the paragraph:

Van’s Aircraft told AVweb they were unable to comment on the matter.

IMO, that there was a "settlement" that Van's can't comment, probably means money changed hands. And (also IMO), whenever you pay a plaintiff, it doesn't mean you're vindicated.

Hopefully, there's some other explanation for the reference to a settlement.
 
The plaintiff was a passenger, not the pilot or builder. So I guess whether the builder should have known better is not really the issue.
 
And we wonder why planes are so expensive?

The builder made an error. Plain and simple.
 
It's sad that companies even have to defend them selfs from this greedy money grab. I'm sure it cost Vans dearly to "settle". If I remember correctly, I think they also sued the fuel pump maker and Lycoming.
 
I doubt it directly cost Van's anything. I bet their insurance company dealt with it. Indirect cost. Just another sad example that it is cheaper to settle than pay lawyers to go through a court where no-one knows what the end result would be.
 
donjohnston said:
"A $35 million lawsuit filed against Van’s Aircraft, characterized by Van’s as an attack on the kitplane industry as a whole, was settled by the parties late last year.
Click to expand...


I know nothing about law, but the term used by Van's was dismissed...

"The crew here at Van’s would like to let everyone know that this suit was dismissed. Van’s own investigation of the accident concurred with the NTSB probable cause report. The complaint against Van’s had no merit."


 
RV10flyer said:
I know nothing about law, but the term used by Van's was dismissed...

"The crew here at Van’s would like to let everyone know that this suit was dismissed. Van’s own investigation of the accident concurred with the NTSB probable cause report. The complaint against Van’s had no merit."
Click to expand...
Seems to me that if it were dismissed, there'd be no restriction on Van's discussing the case. Yet they told AvWeb they couldn't discuss the case. This sounds more like a settlement instead of an outright dismissal.

However, it's possible that the settlement did not require any payment by Vans (other than its legal expenses). The plaintiff may have agreed not to refile, if Van's didn't publicly discuss the case.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Seems to me that if it were dismissed, there'd be no restriction on Van's discussing the case. Yet they told AvWeb they couldn't discuss the case. This sounds more like a settlement instead of an outright dismissal.
Click to expand...
Online summary of the case says, "Settlement Agreement Reached" for a status hearing back in November.

This looks like an out-of-court settlement, not a judicial finding.

Ron Wanttaja
 
mtuomi said:
I doubt it directly cost Van's anything. I bet their insurance company dealt with it. Indirect cost. Just another sad example that it is cheaper to settle than pay lawyers to go through a court where no-one knows what the end result would be.
Click to expand...

Right, but that insurance cost is what's costing us. Isn't the liability insurance that manufacturers of a certified small aircraft pays something like $100k per unit?
 
Lindberg said:
The plaintiff was a passenger, not the pilot or builder. So I guess whether the builder should have known better is not really the issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so be the pilot/builder caused the crash he should have gone after him, oh wait, vans has more money
 
deonb said:
Right, but that insurance cost is what's costing us. Isn't the liability insurance that manufacturers of a certified small aircraft pays something like $100k per unit?
Click to expand...

My liability has been increasing 13%/yr just for HVAC, with no accidents or claims ever. Now I know why that IO-540 went from $41k to $65k.
 
Settlement agreements almost always call for dismissal of the case. Sometimes the agreement will call for dismissal only after certain conditions are fulfilled, like multiple payments being made. So it's not necessarily unusual for a case to be "settled" in say November or December but not actually dismissed until February.
 
deonb said:
Right, but that insurance cost is what's costing us. Isn't the liability insurance that manufacturers of a certified small aircraft pays something like $100k per unit?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that is a real number. I was listening to a podcast that had one of the most highly respected aviation litigation attorneys on to interview and the Atty said liability isn't the issue according to him.

does anyone know how many lawsuits have been filed against the current GA aircraft mfgs in the last 10 years?
 
James331 said:
Yeah, so be the pilot/builder caused the crash he should have gone after him, oh wait, vans has more money
Click to expand...

Which is how our law (descended from English Common Law) is structured. Payouts are determined by "ability to pay" regardless of liability level. If Vans was determined to be even 1% liable (by, say, not specifically prohibiting silicone in the fuel system) they'd be on the hook for damages based solely on their ability to pay. Now this is nuts and causes some wacky stuff, but it is (as far as I understand it. I'm not a lawyer.) the way the tort law works. Maybe one of the lawyers on the forum can illuminate or repudiate my comments...
 
James331 said:
I don't understand.

The guy was told not to slob silicone on it, he did so anyway, as a result he crashed, and this was vans fault how?

How is this any diffrent from someone being told not to get drunk and fly, guy decides F' it, drinks and flys, gets killed.

Shoulda known better, was even warned, carried on, died.


It's horrible that there was a loss of life, but the only one to blame was the guy piling the silicone on.
Click to expand...

It's always someone else's fault James. To think that a guy should be held responsible for his own actions is just....ludicrous. :rolleyes:
 
Hey, how did 3M or whoever get away, they made the silicone and probably have waaaay more money than vans, I mean how dare they make silicone which could cause a problem, they should pay....

latest
 
midcap said:
I highly doubt that is a real number. I was listening to a podcast that had one of the most highly respected aviation litigation attorneys on to interview and the Atty said liability isn't the issue according to him.

does anyone know how many lawsuits have been filed against the current GA aircraft mfgs in the last 10 years?
Click to expand...

Ahh. that was the number until GARA was passed in 1994.

From here :
"Insurance underwriters, worldwide, began to refuse to sell product liability insurance to U.S. general aviation manufacturers. By 1987, the three largest GA manufacturers claimed their annual costs for product liability ranged from $70,000 to $100,000 per airplane built and shipped that year.[7][18]

I don't know what it is now. It obviously improved back then, since Cessna was able to resume manufacturing, but it's also 30 years later now... So if it improved to $50'000 in 1987 due to GARA (which I don't know if it did), that would be $100'000 in today's dollars.
 
deonb said:
Ahh. that was the number until GARA was passed in 1994.

From here :
"Insurance underwriters, worldwide, began to refuse to sell product liability insurance to U.S. general aviation manufacturers. By 1987, the three largest GA manufacturers claimed their annual costs for product liability ranged from $70,000 to $100,000 per airplane built and shipped that year.[7][18]

I don't know what it is now. It obviously improved back then, since Cessna was able to resume manufacturing, but it's also 30 years later now... So if it improved to $50'000 in 1987 due to GARA (which I don't know if it did), that would be $100'000 in today's dollars.
Click to expand...

Let's say what you say is accurate. I still would like to see the number of lawsuits and damages awarded to those who sued over the last 10 years.
 
jsstevens said:
Which is how our law (descended from English Common Law) is structured. Payouts are determined by "ability to pay" regardless of liability level. If Vans was determined to be even 1% liable (by, say, not specifically prohibiting silicone in the fuel system) they'd be on the hook for damages based solely on their ability to pay. Now this is nuts and causes some wacky stuff, but it is (as far as I understand it. I'm not a lawyer.) the way the tort law works. Maybe one of the lawyers on the forum can illuminate or repudiate my comments...
Click to expand...
Liability would be based on their negligence, and could be based on their degree of negligence or joint and several with other negligent defendants. I'm not aware of any liability based on ability to pay. That might be confusion with punitive damages, which can be based on a defendant's resources.
 
jsstevens said:
Which is how our law (descended from English Common Law) is structured. Payouts are determined by "ability to pay" regardless of liability level. If Vans was determined to be even 1% liable (by, say, not specifically prohibiting silicone in the fuel system) they'd be on the hook for damages based solely on their ability to pay. Now this is nuts and causes some wacky stuff, but it is (as far as I understand it. I'm not a lawyer.) the way the tort law works. Maybe one of the lawyers on the forum can illuminate or repudiate my comments...
Click to expand...

This isn't really an accurate statement of the law. Punitive damages embrace some semblance of this theory, but as to standard "damages," this just isn't correct.
 
bradg33 said:
This isn't really an accurate statement of the law. Punitive damages embrace some semblance of this theory, but as to standard "damages," this just isn't correct.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. As I said, I'm not a lawyer but this is my recollection of how a lawyer explained the concept to me some years ago and to why "deep pockets" were often named even if they're contribution to the injuring event was negligible.

Perhaps it was the putative damages part. But wouldn't that take into account amount of contribution to the event too?

John
 
jsstevens said:
I stand corrected. As I said, I'm not a lawyer but this is my recollection of how a lawyer explained the concept to me some years ago and to why "deep pockets" were often named even if they're contribution to the injuring event was negligible.

Perhaps it was the putative damages part. But wouldn't that take into account amount of contribution to the event too?

John
Click to expand...
Is the opposite. The deep pockets are included because even if they were only 1% responsible for the injury, as long as they were negligent, in many jurisdictions, they will be 100% liable (as would all other negligent parties).
 
Lindberg said:
Is the opposite. The deep pockets are included because even if they were only 1% responsible for the injury, as long as they were negligent, in many jurisdictions, they will be 100% liable (as would all other negligent parties).
Click to expand...
OK, now I'm confused. That's what I thought I said in my earlier post. Regardless of their level of contribution to the event, if they are liable at all, they pay based on their ability to do so (i.e. deep pockets). Maybe I'm not clear or not using the correct terminology?
 
Here's my take based on a conversation with an attorney who deals with suits against pharmaceuticals. One of the things he said was the the company we were discussing had never lost a suit in court but they had paid a lot of "hush money". The suits were dismissed with prejudice and the agreed settlement was paid to the plaintiff. Sometimes better and cheaper to settle rather than drag thing out and spend tons on legal fees in the process.
 
jsstevens said:
OK, now I'm confused. That's what I thought I said in my earlier post. Regardless of their level of contribution to the event, if they are liable at all, they pay based on their ability to do so (i.e. deep pockets). Maybe I'm not clear or not using the correct terminology?
Click to expand...

The concept is really joint and several liability. Let's assume there are 3 defendants: A, B and C. Let's assume the Court or jury awards a total of $100 in damages, and determines that A is 10% liable, B is 30% liable, and C is 60% liable. In a state with joint and several tort liability, the plaintiff can collect the entire $100 from any of the three defendants, even from A who is only really liable for $10. A can then go after B and C to collect a total of $90 (usually called contribution), so that A is ultimately only out $10. So A is really only liable for 10%, but A is subject to being forced to pay to plaintiff 100%, and resorting to contribution claims to get reimbursed from the co-defendants.
 
bradg33 said:
The concept is really joint and several liability. Let's assume there are 3 defendants: A, B and C. Let's assume the Court or jury awards a total of $100 in damages, and determines that A is 10% liable, B is 30% liable, and C is 60% liable. In a state with joint and several tort liability, the plaintiff can collect the entire $100 from any of the three defendants, even from A who is only really liable for $10. A can then go after B and C to collect a total of $90 (usually called contribution), so that A is ultimately only out $10. So A is really only liable for 10%, but A is subject to being forced to pay to plaintiff 100%, and resorting to contribution claims to get reimbursed from the co-defendants.
Click to expand...
And the plaintiff is going to try hardest to collect from whoever had the most money. So they're all "on the hook" for whatever they are on the hook for, but the deep pockets will wind up paying.
 
Lindberg said:
Liability would be based on their negligence, and could be based on their degree of negligence or joint and several with other negligent defendants. I'm not aware of any liability based on ability to pay. That might be confusion with punitive damages, which can be based on a defendant's resources.
Click to expand...
Look up "strict liability."
 
This is why we need to go to a "Loser Pays" type tort system. Remember how Texas limited medical liability some years back and all the trial lawyers howled that the sky would fall in on the Texas medical system ? I guess they're still waiting on that to happen.
 
bradg33 said:
The concept is really joint and several liability. Let's assume there are 3 defendants: A, B and C. Let's assume the Court or jury awards a total of $100 in damages, and determines that A is 10% liable, B is 30% liable, and C is 60% liable. In a state with joint and several tort liability, the plaintiff can collect the entire $100 from any of the three defendants, even from A who is only really liable for $10. A can then go after B and C to collect a total of $90 (usually called contribution), so that A is ultimately only out $10. So A is really only liable for 10%, but A is subject to being forced to pay to plaintiff 100%, and resorting to contribution claims to get reimbursed from the co-defendants.
Click to expand...

OK. That matches what I understood but apparently didn't communicate. Thanks.
 
wanttaja said:
Seems to me that if it were dismissed, there'd be no restriction on Van's discussing the case. Yet they told AvWeb they couldn't discuss the case. This sounds more like a settlement instead of an outright dismissal.
Click to expand...
There's also the issue that Vans may have been an NTSB party in the investigation (prior to being sued).
 
paflyer said:
Look up "strict liability."
Click to expand...
I was responding to the general comment about our legal system. I'm not aware of the specific claims asserted in this case. But I assume there'd be both strict liability and negligence claims.
 
Norman said:
Here's my take based on a conversation with an attorney who deals with suits against pharmaceuticals. One of the things he said was the the company we were discussing had never lost a suit in court but they had paid a lot of "hush money". The suits were dismissed with prejudice and the agreed settlement was paid to the plaintiff. Sometimes better and cheaper to settle rather than drag thing out and spend tons on legal fees in the process.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but in my decades in business have had to deal with a variety of legal disputes.
My position has always been a negotiated resolution is better than going into a court room. Even a deal on the courthouse steps beats going inside.

As long as there is a chance to negotiate both parties have the ability to influence and control the outcome. Once inside that is completely lost. You may think you have an airtight case, but there is always the chance the judge rules against you. A negotiated resolution doesn't mean one believes they are guilty or at fault, it's merely good risk management in most business situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top