Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Dan:

  

I talked to my aviation lawyer less than a year ago and 

my info, John Denver's estate did not sue the builder.

  

It would be ridiculous a multimillionaire (estate) suing a guy 

with $2 in the bank. Please send your source/ refrence. God  

rest his soul, Dear John was flying real low on altitude and gas, 

and had no license after a few DWI's. I think you are wrong.

   

  (John Denver flew into the water. The fuel selector was in 

a non-standard place and was thought that he accidentally 

flew into the water when reaching for it. However he was 

very low and was out or almost out of fuel. Lesson learned 

BUILD YOU RV PER PLANS and DON'T DO WEIRD 

ONE OFF SYSTEM DESIGNS YOU DREAM UP, at 

least if you don't want to be suied.)

   

  Your case TWO. Again no offense but facts, case number, 

names, not rumor, hearsay and urban legend. This is 

what I am talking about. You throw out a scenario that is 

hard to believe, no offense. I would not be surprised if 

someone at AOPA made this up.

   

  There have been people's estates  who sue the pilot or 

pilot estate for killing the passenger, their family member, 

but that has NOTHING to do with selling a plane and being 

sued as the builder or manufacture. 

   

  (BY THE WAY, waiver and hold harmless waivers work for 

passengers. Whether the hold up how know it would no 

hurt. ALSO have a LAWYER write these up. It is worth the 

few $100 bucks to have it written verses a generic boiler-plate 

form you found or dreamed up.)

   

   

  If you have examples: Names, places, state, city where the 

lawsuit is filed I'll look into it. I still stand by NEVER. 

   

  Your other points and conjecture is correct and interesting.

Yes lawsuits are expensive even if you win. However put 

that into the agreement. The agreement says if you buy and 

fly this home-built you can DIE, you accept all risk and waive 

all legal rights to sue, you the builder. If you do get sued from 

some 3rd party (a passenger) the buyer will pay all your legal 

fees. That is the way it should be anyway. That would cut 

down the stupid frivolous lawsuits. 

   

  As I said these agreements should work but there is no 

legal precedence, since no builder has been sued for 

building (that I or my aviation lawyer knows of). It is better 

than nothing. CAN YOU BE SUED. you bet your sweat 

rudder you can. However as I said your dog bites someone 

you can get suied. Build a good plane, don't sell to an idiot, 

get a waiver drawn up by a Lawyer and allow or insist that 

the buyers faimly and their lawyer read and approve it.  

If for some reason you got sued the defense should not 

break the bank. Slam dunk, the buyer killed them self for 

say, doing low level acro. 

   

   

  Cheers George 

   

   

   

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net>

Subject: Re: Re:  AOPA hates homebuilts? 



posted by: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net>



"Never" is a big word.  I can think of two lawsuits against builders 

just from casual reading of the news in the last few years.

  >Lawsuit 1:  In the John Denver crash, the newspapers reported that 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  Denver's relatives sued several people including the builder.  I don't 

  >know the outcome however.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  

Lawsuit 2:  This one was somewhat complicated involving several sales 

and owners. Step 1: Individual A builds aircraft and flies for several 

  >years. Sells aircraft to individual B.
	


  >Step 2: B flies aircraft for several years and then sells aircraft 

 	  Quote: 	
		  to individual C. Step 3: C flies aircraft for several years.  Then one 

  >day he takes a friend's wife for a ride and performs low level aerobatics 
	


  >in view of the husband.  Crashes killing himself and friend's wife.

    >Step 4: Husband sues individual A.

    >Step 5: Individual A sues B.  I don't know the outcome of the 

 	  Quote: 	
		  lawsuits.


	


		

---------------------------------

pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pet
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the

builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which

causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's

damages.



A waiver of liability can be prepared and signed by the buyer and

spouse, however that is only an agreement between those individuals.

The agreement must not be found unconscionable and signed by both

parties after an arms-length negotiation with each party having an equal

bargaining position.



The new owner's minor children who lose their parent cannot legally

enter into a contract, nor can a parent enter into a contract on their

behalf, therefore the risk remains.  The builder's negligent product has

taken away the minor children's parental love, support and college

tuition payments and someone gets to take over with their checkbook.



Likewise, if the negligently designed or manufactured airplane harms

someone or property on the ground the waiver between the buyer and

seller will not apply to their claims against the negligent builder.



The victims will all come after the negligent builder who must then file

a lawsuit against the buyer for indemnity and hope the buyer has enough

money to pay any judgments rendered against the builder.  Lots of up

front legal expenses even with an an attorney's fee provision.



A few years ago AVEMCO announced that they were offering continuing

products liability for up to three years after sale for insured builders

who had been covered by an AVEMCO policy the previous three years.  Each

year of insurance extended the after sale coverage for one year up to a

maximum of three years coverage after sale. This was a wonderful program

for we homebuilders who decided to sell our aircraft.   Regardless of

the builder's ultimate liability or lack thereof, AVEMCO is paying for

an attorney to defend the builder.



AVEMCO's policy was the only economical products liability coverage

available . . .  without getting in line with Detroit automakers,

passenger jet aircraft manufactures, cigarette manufacturers, makers of

Vioxx, etc. to try to purchase a major manufacturer's product liability

policy for your one single manufactured product.  Hopefully after three

years the new owner would learn to fly it safely or as a true EAA member

make enough changes that none of your original work remains untampered

with.



John Denver's estate went after the manufacturer of the fuel valve that

failed leaving about 45 minutes of fuel in the tank the valve had been

switched to when the plane was pulled from the water. In expert

testimony it became apparent that the manufacturer knew of the corrosion

problem and failed to issue proper lubricants specifications for

periodic maintenance. Hundreds of the valves had failed from the same

problem that caused John Denver's to corrode.  The maker of the fuel

valve was forced to finally issue proper lubrication maintenance

guidelines to prevent the continuing problem as part of the settlement.



The fuel valve had been mounted on the bulkhead over the pilot's

shoulder by the builder as a safety modification to eliminate having

fuel lines running in the front near the pilot's feet and crotch in the

plastic rear-engined aircraft. 



John Denver was observed switching the tank valve by a line person at

the Monterey airport when he started his plane to takeoff to do some

touch and go practices.  With the larger engine on his particular

aircraft he intentionally did not want full tanks for practice flights

remaining within the local pattern.



Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"

around.



Pete Cowper

RV8 #81139

ptrotter

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 28
Location: Westchester County, NY

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Pete,



Do you think that there is any advantage from a liability perspective to 

define the manufacturer of a homebuilt as a corporate entity of some kind, 

such as an LLC?  Theoretically the purpose of an LLC is to limit the 

liability of the stockholders, although I don't know how it actually works 

out in reality, if a lawsuit were to occur.



Paul

---

_________________
Paul Trotter
RV-8 82080 Fuselage Kit
N801PT (reserved)

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Good idea, but you can't.  You no longer can even define the "mfgr" as

multiple people like you used to.  Has to be a single person now.



Cheers,

Stein.



--

bertrv6(at)highstream.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Quoting Pete Cowper <pcowper(at)webtv.net>:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the

 builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which

 causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's

 damages.



 A waiver of liability can be prepared and signed by the buyer and

 spouse, however that is only an agreement between those individuals.

 The agreement must not be found unconscionable and signed by both

 parties after an arms-length negotiation with each party having an equal

 bargaining position.



 The new owner's minor children who lose their parent cannot legally

 enter into a contract, nor can a parent enter into a contract on their

 behalf, therefore the risk remains.  The builder's negligent product has

 taken away the minor children's parental love, support and college

 tuition payments and someone gets to take over with their checkbook.



 Likewise, if the negligently designed or manufactured airplane harms

 someone or property on the ground the waiver between the buyer and

 seller will not apply to their claims against the negligent builder.



 The victims will all come after the negligent builder who must then file

 a lawsuit against the buyer for indemnity and hope the buyer has enough

 money to pay any judgments rendered against the builder.  Lots of up

 front legal expenses even with an an attorney's fee provision.



 A few years ago AVEMCO announced that they were offering continuing

 products liability for up to three years after sale for insured builders

 who had been covered by an AVEMCO policy the previous three years.  Each

 year of insurance extended the after sale coverage for one year up to a

 maximum of three years coverage after sale. This was a wonderful program

 for we homebuilders who decided to sell our aircraft.   Regardless of

 the builder's ultimate liability or lack thereof, AVEMCO is paying for

 an attorney to defend the builder.



 AVEMCO's policy was the only economical products liability coverage

 available . . .  without getting in line with Detroit automakers,

 passenger jet aircraft manufactures, cigarette manufacturers, makers of

 Vioxx, etc. to try to purchase a major manufacturer's product liability

 policy for your one single manufactured product.  Hopefully after three

 years the new owner would learn to fly it safely or as a true EAA member

 make enough changes that none of your original work remains untampered

 with.



 John Denver's estate went after the manufacturer of the fuel valve that

 failed leaving about 45 minutes of fuel in the tank the valve had been

 switched to when the plane was pulled from the water. In expert

 testimony it became apparent that the manufacturer knew of the corrosion

 problem and failed to issue proper lubricants specifications for

 periodic maintenance. Hundreds of the valves had failed from the same

 problem that caused John Denver's to corrode.  The maker of the fuel

 valve was forced to finally issue proper lubrication maintenance

 guidelines to prevent the continuing problem as part of the settlement.



 The fuel valve had been mounted on the bulkhead over the pilot's

 shoulder by the builder as a safety modification to eliminate having

 fuel lines running in the front near the pilot's feet and crotch in the

 plastic rear-engined aircraft.



 John Denver was observed switching the tank valve by a line person at

 the Monterey airport when he started his plane to takeoff to do some

 touch and go practices.  With the larger engine on his particular

 aircraft he intentionally did not want full tanks for practice flights

 remaining within the local pattern.



 Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"

 around.



 Pete Cowper

 RV8 #81139

 Pete:  And here I Thought I new all about his accident, I understood

that it was not failure of the fuel valve, but that the valve was installed
	


in an ackward position to reach it, and that was the reason of the accident

John, was trying to reach valve to switch tanks... I always wander why

any one do things like installing important, devices, in places one has

trouble reaching...



Now I really would like to know exactly what was the reason for the

accident.

Bert

rv6a



Do Not archive

 	  Quote:

jsflyrv

Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 22

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

bertrv6(at)highstream.net wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



Quoting Pete Cowper <pcowper(at)webtv.net>:



  



>Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"

>around.

>

>Pete Cowper

>RV8 #81139

>Pete:  And here I Thought I new all about his accident, I understood

>    

>

that it was not failure of the fuel valve, but that the valve was installed

in an ackward position to reach it, and that was the reason of the accident

John, was trying to reach valve to switch tanks... I always wander why

any one do things like installing important, devices, in places one has

trouble reaching...



Now I really would like to know exactly what was the reason for the

accident.

Bert

rv6a



Do Not archive

  



Of course leave it to bottom feeding lawyers to blame someone or 
	


something except the person really at fault.



Here is an excerpt of the final findings by the NTSB.

======

the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane 

and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the 

loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel 

selector handle. Also, the Board determined that the pilot's inadequate 

preflight planning and preparation, specifically his failure to refuel 

the airplane, was causal. The Board determined that the builder's 

decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access 

position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition 

training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of 

airplane were factors in the accident.

=======

Just do a search of John Denver accident to find all the information you 

would want to know.

DO NOT ARCHIVE

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

On 15:21:44 2006-04-23 pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pete Cowper) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If

 the builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture

 which causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that

 victim's damages.



[stuff deleted]
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"

 around.


	


That's all well and good, but it doesn't do anything to contradict the

claim in the previous post, which was that no builders, themselves, had

ever been sued.  Manufacturers of parts, yes.  But no builders.



I'm not saying that the claim was valid, just that it hasn't been done yet.

 Or does someone have some citations of cases where it's happened?



-Rob

T.gummo(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

A quote from my Small Business for Dummies book:



Limited Liability Corporations



"LLC is hybrid entity. It combines the benefits of a corporation with those 

of a partnership:



    Like a corporation, investors in a LLC, do not face personal liability 

for the debts or obligations of the LLC."



There is nothing about only one person, etc. etc.



Wish I understood, all I know about his subject but I will be doing some 

more research on this matter.



Tom Gummo

Apple Valley, CA

Harmon Rocket-II



do not archive



http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html



 	  Quote: 	
		   Do you think that there is any advantage from a liability perspective to

 define the manufacturer of a homebuilt as a corporate entity of some kind,

 such as an LLC?  Theoretically the purpose of an LLC is to limit the

 liability of the stockholders, although I don't know how it actually works

 out in reality, if a lawsuit were to occur.

alexpeterson(at)earthlink
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 A quote from my Small Business for Dummies book:

 

 Limited Liability Corporations

 

 "LLC is hybrid entity. It combines the benefits of a 

 corporation with those of a partnership:

 

     Like a corporation, investors in a LLC, do not face 

 personal liability for the debts or obligations of the LLC."

 

 There is nothing about only one person, etc. etc.

 

 Wish I understood, all I know about his subject but I will be 

 doing some more research on this matter.

 

 Tom Gummo

 Apple Valley, CA

 Harmon Rocket-II

 

 do not archive


	


Any corporate "veil", whether S-corp, LLC, etc., will not protect its

individual owners' or principals' personal worth from liability if they are

indeed guilty of some mis-deed.  It may protect them if one of their

employees does something dumb while on the job, something that was out of

the control of the company.  It doesn't go much further, though.



Alex Peterson

RV6-A N66AP 752 hours, installing Lightspeed dual ignitions

Maple Grove, MN

jhelms(at)i1.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:00 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Also, you as the pilot of an accident airplane can be sued.  So, if you're

the only person who ever flies the plane, the LLC or Inc might not help.  In

some cases, an LLC or Inc can be useful if it is truly a couple of pilots

that own the plane.  That way if your partner is flying, crashes, the

corporation and the pilot who was operating the plane are likely to be sued.

You (the pilot/owner who was not operating the plane) could be protected

better than if you all own it as Joe Smith, and John Smedlap.



However, (and this is a big one which I just learned about recently) in some

states (Missouri being one of them) it is my understanding that the officers

of a corporation can be held personally liable for the actions of that

corporation.  



JT



--

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

 	  Quote: 	
		  posted by: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>

      
	


      >Don't  you dare shame me.

      

      >The idea of this forum is to make helpful suggestions about various 

      >topics, not to shame people because they post a message you 

        >personally do not agree with.

      

      >Steve Glasgow

  

Well Steve I am sorry if I offended you sincerely, but come on 9/11! 

That just makes no sense and that is a sacred date, worth of respect, 

not to be mentioned casually. I actually agree with you.

  

    >"Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean 

    >that it can't happen tomorrow.  Witness 9/11."

  

I am not sure what point you where trying to make? Again from  legal 

precedence law suites against builders is zero to date. No one is saying 

that you can not be sued. Anything is possible, however what does that 

have anything to do with 9/11. 

   

  If your attempted was to use an analogy to make the point, anything 

can happen, than hit by lighting or meteorite might be better than 9/11.   

   

  Regarding homebuilt's they MEET NO STANDARDS of any kind and 

are not subject to product liability. They are Amateur, AMATEUR built.

   

  There is no PRODUCT Liability expressed or implied. You can change 

the name from RV-7, to "Death Trap-7; Model: Use at your OWN Risk."

   

  Attempt at humor but you know what I mean. There is a placard that 

tells all who fly in it, it DOES NOT meet STANDARDS. 

  

George

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

   



		

---------------------------------

Blab-away for as little as 1/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum