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: Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

 	  Quote: 	
		  posted by: pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pete Cowper)



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.

  
	


FIRST KIT PLANE BUILDERS DONT DESIGN THEIR 

  PLANE.  



  We all know that as the builder we are the SO CALLED 

manufacture, SO what. However its not a product held 

out by a company for the general public in mass. No 

one is arguing there is liability, but it has to be 

related to the building of the aircraft. There is NO 

legal precedence of a builder being sued or loosing a 

product liability case TO DATE. (deal with facts please.)

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

  
	


Are you a lawyer or legal expert. As I mentioned on 

a previous post hold harmless agreements should work, 

but then no one has needed to prove it in a law suits against 

a BUILDER, since there has been ZERO to date. 

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

  
	


You are getting into the minutia of legalities and 

WHAT IFS. My dog can sue you but he is not going to 

win. Your FICTITIOUS scenarios prove nothing but you 

have an imagination. Fiction does not make law, legal 

precedence does. THE adult parent in your scenario 

assumes all responsibility flying a homebuilt amateur 

built plane the DOES NOT MEET Federal regulations. If 

anyone is going to get sued it is the CHILD and 

his parents estate for being an idiot and killing 

himself and who ever else they killed or damaged. I have 

a question, ARE YOU A Liberal? Do you think gun and 

ammo makers should be sued when someone gets shot? 

You are the kind of person I would NOT want to sell my 

plane to, someone who looks to blame and not take 

responsibility for their actions and choices.

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

  
	


Again SO WHAT. You are a chicken little sky falling 

kind of guy and worry way to much. I mean that is cool 

and works for you, however life has risks and 

liabilities. I am surprised you fly at all. Flying 

little planes is VERY risky. You can crash into an 

elementary school. You are going to get an ulcer. If a 

guy flies into a house with an amateur built plane you 

or I built and sold because of HIS stupidity, than OUR 

liability is nil, small. If sued the defense should be 

straight forward. AGAIN THERE IS NO Legal Precedence. 

THAT COUNTS A LOT. If you are going to give case 

history or examples give real ones not made up 

scenarios that have no REAL meaning.

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  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 attorney's fee 

provision.

  
	


LOOK you keep saying the victims WILL all come after 

the negligent builder. WHY IS THE BUILDER NEGLIGENT? 

YOU MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, Like WILL come after. Chance is 

they will NOT sue at all. Why not sue the kit 

manufacture of the plane parts? How about Lycoming? 

Hartzell? I mean the list is long and your point is 

full of conjecture, assumptions and over wrought 

paranoia. Again your statements are sensational and 

emotional from your overactive paranoid mind. Go on 

FACTS and REAL risk, not what you can dream up can 

happen. S#(at)t happens. All you can do is protect 

yourself with documentation and agreements.

   

  TO be clear however, if you build and sell a plane and 

  don't put the bolts in the rear spar you should get sued,

  bankrupted and thrown in jail. 

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

  
	


WOW good old AVEMCO wants to take your money. Gee  

what great guys. Look they OFFER IT because they know  

the liability is low and they can defend against it 

easily. They dont offer it out of the goodness of 

their heart. THEY ARE MAKING MONEY, Bottom line. 

AVEMCO is all about MAKING MONEY. That is why   

AVEMCO, for all intensive purposes has priced homebuilts  

out of the (their) insurance market. They have dropped first 

flight and under construction insurance for most 

people. There premium of course is the highest and 

they will viciously sue YOU, their customer to NOT pay 

if they smell any breach in the conditions of the 

insurance. WOW gee what great guys. 

   

  >AVEMCO's policy was the only economical products 

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

  
	


First of all jet manufactures like Boeing dont have 

product liability insurance. They defend themselves 

vigorously in court (and usually win) and are self 

covered if you will. Now you are just stretching and 

rambling about Vioxx. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Homebuilt plane, 

well built, per planes, with a PLACARD  THIS IS A 

Amateur built plane and may not MEET federal 

standards. If you sell your plane, KEEP DETAILED 

records, pictures, logs and so on. AGAIN there is SOME 

liability but its not likely the worst case scenarios you  

dream up will happen. Also despite the cost of defending 

yourself, it is a long shot they will win. Look if you 

want to scrap your RV-8 when you loose your medical 

(soon with your blood pressure) that's your business.

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

  
	


SO? They sued the valve maker NOT the builder. They 

not only sued the valve maker Gould Electronics Inc., 

they sued Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co. who sold it. 

I stand by my previous statement NO **BUILDER** HAS 

BEEN SUED TO DATE THAT I OR MY LAWYER KNOW OF.

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

   
	


  SO WHAT, What is your POINT?

   

  >John Denver was observed switching the tank valve by 

 	  Quote: 	
		  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.

   
	


   

  Again SO WHAT? What is your point? AGAIN THE BUILDER 

DID NOT GET SUED! (Even though he did a weird thing.) 

  You state the KNOWN  facts of the accident as if you are 

  going some where with it. SO WHAT! HE KILLED HIMSELF.

   

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  Please get the facts before throwing the term 

"frivolous litigation" around.

  
	


YOU HAVE NO FACTS. Everything I stated is correct. 

There has NEVER been any lawsuits TO DATE against a 

builder. Get YOUR facts straight. Also please have a 

beer or calm down before writing. You are scaring 

people for no reason. I hope you dont act like this 

in the cockpit if you have an emergency. I think you 

are going to have a massive heart attack and sue me. 



  You make ZERO points, made up a few fictitious 

examples you dreamed up and prove nothing. AGAIN 

LEAGAL precedence against BUILDERS is (zero) so that 

your REAL liability risk is SMALL. Lawyers and judges 

go by previous case history and precedence. That does 

not mean your exposure is ZERO. I does NOT mean you 

cant be sued, but it does mean that the chance is 

small, and there are things to limit your exposure and 

help defend yourself if the worse happens, as I 

suggested. HOWEVER I am not going to give legal 

advice, because I dont want to be sued for giving out 

advice. My advice is get a lawyer when you sell your 

plane.

  

When I sell my plane I will have independant inspections,

  agreements written up. I will put a placard across the panel 

  saying USE AT YOUR OWN RISK (documented in the 

  agreement, log book and photos). Of course they will take 

  it off but that is not my problem since its documented in the 

  agreement it will not be removed (like pillow tags). I will make 

  log book entries, have excellent documentation. Could I still 

  get sued, sure, but for what? Bad design? I did not design it. 

  The case will be thrown out with my evidence.

   

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  Pete Cowper

RV8 #81139

  
	


Pete I suggest you never sell your plane I dont think 

your heart will take it.   lol. Take care and fly 

safe. We agree to disagree. Please stop making 

  stuff up like it has happened. It than gets spread 

  around that it did, than there is an issue where 

  none exist. All the liability issue is trumped up but 

  AOPA or Cessna because they want people the buy 

  a $200,000 C172 that has the performance of a 

  C-172. They would love to spread this urban legend.

   

  HOMEBUILTS RULE!

   

  George RV-7



		

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

Steve Glasgow

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 674

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:04 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean that it can't happen tomorrow.  Witness 9/11.



Steve Glasgow

_________________
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
Cappy's Toy
RV-8 N123SG

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Just because it might happen tomorrow, doesn't mean it will.



Chuck Jensen

Do Not Archive



[quote] --

davidfenster(at)comcast.n
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Anyone ever been to divorce court?

Anything can happen when a third person (da' Judge) is involved.

Just because it has never happened doesn't mean you won't set the 

precedent........

I love me aeroplane - it don't complain about me not workin' it.



Please DO NOT ARCHIVE



Steve Glasgow wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean that it can't happen tomorrow.  Witness 9/11.



 Steve Glasgow

ptrotter

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

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Van's seems to have taken the liability issue to heart as well.  I sent in 

my license agreement and they responded by sending me back a liability 

release form that they say they require as of 3/1/06.  The normal statement 

that aircraft are dangerous, etc. etc.  Pretty standard boilerplate language 

and states that I am signing this release on behalf of just about anyone I 

might know.



Paul





---

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

martorious(at)earthlink.n
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:18 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Isn't this about the same time frame as the fuel tank SB was issued?

Inquiring minds...



Marty

Do Not Archive






Van's seems to have taken the liability issue to heart as well.  I sent in 

my license agreement and they responded by sending me back a liability 

release form that they say they require as of 3/1/06.  The normal statement 

that aircraft are dangerous, etc. etc.  Pretty standard boilerplate language



and states that I am signing this release on behalf of just about anyone I 

might know.



Paul

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

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

 

Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean that 

it can't happen tomorrow.  Witness 9/11.

 
	


 

No KIDDING! Daaaaa,

 

AND you invoke 9/11 somehow to make a point. Shame on you! Not 

only is that distastefully its ridiculous.

   

  Look your chance of flying your RV into the ground and killing yourself 

is way way way greater than being sued, so my suggestion is dont sell 

your plane or even fly at all, it is safer. 

   

  No one said that you could NOT be sued but the risk is small with some 

common sense precautions. When talking legal issues you have to be 

rational and think in terms of RULE OF LAW. Get a Lawyer, specifically 

an aviation lawyer who understands product liability; ask them to get a 

perspective. Just get educated and cover your A, that's all.

 

Let me repeat for you, legal precedence indicates the sensational fear of 

lawsuit is OVER hyped, although it is possible. Any thing is possible.  

Heck, Piper got sued for a 65 year old Piper Cub because the plane did 

not have shoulder harness. Of course the idiot pilot took off on a closed 

runway and hit a truck. So sure someone could sue you, but their chance 

of winning is small if you take some precautions, that others and myself 

have spoke to which I will not repeat. Get smart not concerned and anxious.

 

If someone does a low level loop in a plane you built, that has changed 

hands three times, crashes, dies, your liability is small. Yes you may 

need to defend yourself, but unless they can prove you contributed to it, 

than the case is weak. You could counter sue them for a frivolous lawsuit.

  Now if the wing folded because you did not put the rivets in, than yes  

you are liable and should be.

   

  Van was sued for a factory RV-8 in-flight wing failure. Van prevaliled. 

This was a factory plane with an employee and the employees friend.

   

  A professional waiver could have all kinds of legal stipulations to cover 

your A. I am not going to give advice here. GET A GOOD LAWYER. 

   

  Spend the time, money and effort to cover yourself per your legal 

council, and you can sell a RV or whatever with confidence and 

reduced risk of lawsuit, which statistically from legal precedence  

is already small (small but not non-existent). You have to weigh the 

risk with good counsel. I don't recommend a homemade waiver.

  

Nuff Said. George 



		

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

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1&cent;/min.

flyrv6(at)bryantechnology
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Why don't we all pitch in a dollar and get a good waiver written that we

could all use.  Why should we each spend the money to have these things

drawn up.=0D

=0D

Tim =0D

 =0D

----

Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

In a message dated 4/26/2006 4:50:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  

flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com writes:



Why  don't we all pitch in a dollar and get a good waiver written that we

could  all use.  Why should we each spend the money to have these  things

drawn up.

=================================

 

They're readily available.  Would you like one?

 

 

 

GV (RV-6A  N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 780hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)

Steve Glasgow

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 674

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:07 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

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. =20



Steve Glasgow

_________________
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
Cappy's Toy
RV-8 N123SG

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Conspiracy theorist unite. Could be?

   

  ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS, when the Lawsuits start, Van will start charging 

$45,000 for a kit, thanks to the idiots that are suing. 

   

  If some Lawyer thinks Van's aircraft is a wealthy company, and see all these 

$100,000 planes flying and think BINGO!

   

  I can tell you that there profit margin in their kits are small. It is amazing if 

you look at the quality and price of today's kits and the price/quality of kits 

of 18 years ago that cost may be $8,000, I am amazed Van can keep the 

price so low. Van used to raise the price a few hundred when aluminum 

prices went up. That is because they don't have huge padding in the price. 

I doubt Van has the deep pockets.

   

   

  So if Van is trying to cover his A, I suggest we all learn. People just don't 

take personal responsibility and want to sue when STUFF happens. That 

that is life. If you don't want any chance of being killed in a plane than don't

fly. 

   

  George

   

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

   

  From: "Marty" <martorious(at)earthlink.net>


  Isn't this about the same time frame as the fuel tank SB was issued?

Inquiring minds...

  Marty

  

Do Not Archive

   



		

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

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low  PC-to-Phone call rates.

flyrv6(at)bryantechnology
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:50 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

=0D

 =0D

 	  Quote: 	
		  >In a message dated 4/26/2006 4:50:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,=0D

>flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com writes:=0D

 =0D
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  >Why  don't we all pitch in a dollar and get a good waiver written that =

we=0D
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  >could  all use.  Why should we each spend the money to have these  thin=

gs=0D
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  >drawn up.=0D

 =0D
	


 =0D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D

 =0D

 	  Quote: 	
		  >They're readily available.  Would you like one?=0D

 =0D
	


 =0D

 =0D

 	  Quote: 	
		  >GV (RV-6A  N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 780hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)=0D

=0D
	


Two earlier posts suggested NOT to use boiler plate and to hire an atorne=

y.=20

I was commenting on this, and suggesting we only hire one for all of us t=

o

have some *specialty boiler plate* ones.  Do you think the standard boile=

r

plate is sufficient?=0D

Thanks for your comments=0D

Tim=0D

Do Not Archive=0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

 =0D

=20

Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Here is the text of the one I have used.  Now let's all parse the  language=20

and argue about how to make it better and impenetrable by clever  lawyers. =20=

As=20

Former President Clinton said,  define "is". ;o)

=20

=20

EXPERIMENTAL-AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT SALES  AGREEMENT=20

THIS FORM  SUPPLEMENTS, BUT DOES NOT REPLACE, FAA AC FORM 8050-2.  THE FAA=20

REGISTRATION-NUMBER OF THIS  AIRCRAFT IS NXXXX. THIS AIRCRAFT WAS CONSTRUCTE=

D IN=20

ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS  SERIAL NUMBER XXXXX, AND IS A FACSIMILE OF AN AIRCRAF=

T=20

KNOWN AS AN  XX-XX.  THE AIRCRAFT IS  DESCRIBED IN GREATER DETAIL ON SHEET 2=

=20

OF THIS  AGREEMENT.=20

The experimental-amateur  built aircraft being sold is not designed and/or=20

built to meet any defined  standards of airworthiness as are =E2=80=9CStanda=

rd Aircraft=E2=80=9D

.  This aircraft does not have an FAA Form  317 Statement of Conformity on=20

file, as there are no FAA approved data with  which to conform.  In the case=

 of =20

experimental-amateur built aircraft, the registered owner(s) is/are the =20

experimenter(s).  Most parts of this  aircraft were not built in permanent j=

igs=20

and, as such, may not be directly  interchangeable with like parts on other=20

aircraft of the same facsimile.  The original builder of this  experimental=20

aircraft may possess a repairman=E2=80=99s certificate for purposes of  main=

taining and=20

performing condition inspections on this aircraft only, although  he/she may=

 not=20

be a professional mechanic nor possess an FAA A&P  license.  FAA records lis=

t=20

the  registered owner(s) as the manufacturer of an experimental-amateur buil=

t =20

aircraft as the manufacturer and, as manufacturer, the registered owner(s) =20

is/are free to make any modifications or changes to the design as they see f=

it, =20

although notification of major alterations have and must be made to the  FAA=

.=20

 This aircraft is an example of  the builder/owner=E2=80=99s creative abilit=

y and was=20

built for their education and  recreation.  Upon sale, the newly  registered=

=20

owner of this experimental-amateur built aircraft in fact will be  considere=

d=20

its new manufacturer.  As  of the date of sale, the new owner becomes=20

responsible for its aerodynamic and  structural function and/or concept.  Th=

e new=20

owner is responsible for the performance, fit and/or purpose of  every part/=

piece=20

on the aircraft.=20

No warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, is  made to the=20

Purchaser or anyone else as to the merchantability or airworthiness  of NXXX=

X.  This =20

experimental-amateur built aircraft is sold on an =E2=80=9CAS IS, WHERE-IS a=

nd WITH=20

ALL  FAULTS PRESENTLY INCORPORATED=E2=80=9D basis.=20

Flying poses certain inherent risks that can result in  serious injury or=20

death.  Any person  who pilots or acts as passenger in this experimental air=

craft=20

does so at his/her  own risk.  Because of the sale  hereof and in receipt of=

=20

other good and valuable consideration, the  Purchaser/new Owner hereby Waive=

s=20

and Releases the seller(s) from any and all  Demands, Claims of every kind,=20

including but not limited to, Liability, Breach  of Warranty or Negligence,=20

which the Purchaser, owner , pilot, and/or passenger  in this experimental=20

aircraft may have.  This Release and Waiver is binding on all Heirs, Persona=

l=20

Representatives  and Assigns of the Purchaser, Subsequent Owners, Pilots and=

/or =20

Passengers.=20

As Purchaser/new Owner, I accept the terms of this Sales  Agreement for the=20

experimental-amateur built aircraft identified above and agree  to be bound=20=

by=20

the above stipulations.  I agree that any subsequent sale of this aircraft=20

will be made with the  same disclosures, agreements and assurances listed ab=

ove=20

as a  minimum.=20

Name of Purchaser/new Owner:                                               =20=

 =20

                      Name  of Purchaser/new Co-Owner:                     =20=

 =20

                                =20

Purchaser=E2=80=99s Address:                                               =20=

         =20

                                Co-Owner=E2=80=99s Address:                =20=

         =20

                                                    =20

Signature of Purchaser:                                                    =20=

 =20

                                Signature of Co-Owner:                     =20=

 =20

                                                    =20

As Seller(s), on this XXth day of Month, XXXX  in the County of XXXX, State=20

of XX, I/We do hereby sell, grant, transfer,  release and deliver all rights=

,=20

title, interest, possession and responsibility  for/to such experimental=20

aircraft to the above Purchaser and acknowledge the  receipt of a Cashier=

=E2=80=99s Check in=20

the amount of $XXXX.00, payable to the  Seller.  No sales tax was collected=20=

=20

pursuant to State Law and this becomes the responsibility of the  Purchaser.=

=20

Total Hours Engine and Airframe at time of sale  XXX.X=20

Name of Seller/Owner:                                                      =20=

 =20

                                Name  of Seller/Co-Owner:                  =20=

 =20

                                                   =20

Seller/Owner=E2=80=99s Address:                                            =20=

         =20

                              Seller/Co-Owner=E2=80=99s Address:           =20=

         =20

                                              =20

Signature of Seller/Owner:                                                 =20=

 =20

                              Signature of Co-Owner:                       =20=

 =20

                                                  =20

Witness:                                                                   =20=

 =20

                                          Signature of Witness:            =20=

 =20

                                                                =20

This Bill of Sale is to be signed by all parties.  The FAA dropped the=20

requirement for  notarizing in 1972.  Seller retains  the original and a cop=

y is=20

given to the Purchaser/new Owner.  Seller sends a copy of the original  docu=

ment=20

to the FAA along with Cancellation of Registration FAA AC FORM  8050-73.

DanFM01(at)butter.toast.n
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

In my earlier e-mail on this topic I stated that I had read that the builder 

was named as a defendant in the John Denver case.  Mr. gmcjetpilot expressed 

doubt and asked for references.  After searching around I found one on the 

EAA website. The following two paragraphs are copied from the website.



"In today's litigious society, there is, perhaps, some justification for the 

anxiety homebuilders express about theoretical financial loss arising out of 

their efforts. Experience, to date, does not support these fears. I checked 

carefully with other aviation attorneys and insurers, and the number of 

lawsuits that have actually been litigated against homebuilders is 

minuscule.



"Moreover, at the time of this writing there doesn't appear to be any 

instance in which an actual case was filed, tried, reduced to judgment, and 

collected against a homebuilder. There is one pending arising out of the 

John Denver crash, but that case is focused against the fuel valve 

manufacturer and its retailer, who appears to have coverage, although the 

builder is also being sued."



The lawsuit was later settled out of court.  News reports I have read don't 

give a complete list of the parties to the settlement,  so I cann't say how 

the builder, Adrian Davis,  fared.  Details of the settlement were 

apparently not released, as is common in such cases.



You can reach the source for the above quotation as follows:



Navigate to members.eaa.org.  Login--you must be an EAA member to do this. 

Follow the following links: building,homebuiders 

HQ->Selling/Buying,Articles->Part 5.



Or for a short cut navigate to members.eaa.org. Login and enter "john 

denver" in the search box with the quotes.  Click on the link to Part 5 

Liability etc. Scroll down near the bottom to find the quoted text.



The EAA web site has some extensive articles on legal issues for 

homebuilders.  In particular if you follow the first method of navigation 

above, you get to page with links to 8 or 9 legal topics related to the 

homebuilder.  One of them, Part 3, discusses waivers and releases.  The 

author is sceptical of their value.



The long and short of all this seems to me to be like this:



1.  There is no legal impediment to prevent lawsuits against a homebuilder 

before or after he sells the aircraft.

2.  Lawsuits after the sale are rare.  The lawyers don't have a way of 

counting the number of lawsuits, however,  so it's impossible to quantify 

the risk.

3.  If you are Daddy Warbucks with lots of dough and own a homebuilt,  you 

might consult a lawyer.

4.  For the rest of us the risks are low compared with the ordinary risks of 

aviation.

jpleasants(at)bellsouth.n
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

Fellow listers:



    I hate to get involved in this, but I can't hold off any longer.



    Waiver forms are, in my opinion, just as good as Yogi Berra allegedly

said of oral contracts: "Not worth the paper they're written on."  I say

this after 40+ years of law.  I am unaware of any lawyer whose acumen I

respect using any of these, or if they are using them because their client

insists, opining that they have any immunizing effect at all.



    Having said that, if you want to prepare one, and insist the buyer sign

it, have at it.  It may make you feel better, but don't delude yourself into

thinking that it adds any protection from suit or recovery.  Indeed, it may

have the opposite effect -- can't you just see that mean ol' plaintiff's

lawyer asking the jury why the builder was so worried about the safety of

his aircraft that he felt it necessary to get a signature on such a paper?



    It might be more efficient to wave a cross at any lawyer who shows up,

or bury a silver bullet in the structure.



    Somewhere in this thread, the subject of asset protection came up.  I

urge each one of you to talk to a knowledgeable lawyer before you take any

steps in that direction, and be sure to get him to explain the fraudulent

transfer laws in your state.  Judges and juries get very upset if they smell

anything of that kind.



    And before you flame me, please take a few deep breaths and make sure

you are taking your medicine.



Jim Pleasants

---

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)

I'm not a lawyer but I thought that 'fraudulent transfer laws' only applied

after the tort was commited.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

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