? For you leagle eagles

[Geigo]

I'm doing some part time accounting for a local non-profit. I volunteered to fly employees if needed for some meetings. The ED asked about where they would be in terms of liability. My guess was that it would depend if flying was required or if they were given a choice to drive. Anybody have any experience in this?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Geigo:

This depends on a multitude of factors. If you were an "employee" you and your employer would be shielded from claims from other "employees" by Workman's Compensation. Generally, Workman's Compensation is the sole remedy for injuries and death that occur while on the job. Being in transit has been determined to be "at work" for the purposes of most State's WC law.

It also depends on the venue where there is litigation potential. Some States have "Good Samaritan" laws that would provide some protection. Other States can hold everyone associated with the flight jointly liable for being the "chain of commerce with a dangerous instrumentality."

Most aviation policies provide coverage for $1 million per accident, with a sub limit of $100,000 per seat. This is likely sufficient to defend you and reach a settlement, unless you have other assets that Plaintiff's might want to pursue.

It is difficult, if not imposible, for the non-profit and you to escape liability completely if there should be an accident. Even if you have a rock solid strategy, it would not shield you from litigation while the Plaintiff attorneys figure out what their potential sources of recovery are. Even in GA crashes I often see legal expenses run $100,000+ and sometimes they go much higher before it is all over with. Figure $15,000 to $25,000 just to get you to a dismissal.

As such, your best course of action is to determine what insurance coverage you have available to you and see if your non-profit could be added as an additional insured ( or vice versa ). Most non-profits have a Commercial General Liability policy with pretty decent limits. Sometimes an endorsement to cover limited aviation operations can be added to the CGL coverage. Then have Counsel draft a liability waiver that shifts obligations to that coverage.

That is my $.02. I'm going to do some Angel Flight volunteering and am jumping through some of these hurdles because Angel Flight's waiver is pretty poorly written.

I have found in my 20 years of insurance experience that drafting the waiver to lead to some available source of recovery works best for getting dismissed in the event that something does happen. It is not the easiest process - unfortunately there are no silver bullets to answer your question.

~~~^~~~

This is not to be construed as legal, or risk management, advice. You will have to pay your Counsel to have a valid legal opinion.

 

[Lead Sled]

I'm doing some part time accounting for a local non-profit. I volunteered to fly employees if needed for some meetings. The ED asked about where they would be in terms of liability. My guess was that it would depend if flying was required or if they were given a choice to drive. Anybody have any experience in this?

Geigo, why are you asking us this? Yes, of course there is liability; but there is also liability insurance. You need to be talking with your insurance agent and make sure your coverages are adequate. I'd want to make sure that there wasn't anyway it could be construed as an operation that would require a Part 135 certificate, but I doubt if you'd have any problems there - it's just that you didn't give us many of the specifics.

'Sled

 

[avbug]

Geigo,

You might be a little more specific, as your question makes little sense. I'm uncertain of weather you want to know about ramifications regarding regulation, or weather you want to know how responsible you are for the persons or property you carry. With so little information you provide, no direct reply of substance may be returned.

As a pilot in command, your duty is constant and does not waver; you are responsible at all times for the safe conduct and safe outcome of the flight. If you fail to meet this duty, then yes, you are responsible for whatever may occur. If your question involves any civil legal action that may result from your failure to this duty at any time, then the simple answer is anything is possible. Anything. Hurt someone or place someone in jeopardy, and there is really no limit as to what can happen to you, to the company providing the airplane, to your employers, to the comany or organization for whom you're flying, the entity which arranges the flight, and so on. In civil action, the field is wide open, and whomever might be attached to any resulting action is a target insofar as the person(s) taking action are able to name them.

In other words, screw up, you're screwed.

If instead you're asking about insurance issues, then you need to speak to the insurance carrier. Do not assume that because the flight is insured that you are insulated or free of "liability" or duty. Your duty never goes away. Have a problem, expect to be held responsible for your actions and for any duty to the passenges, property, aircraft, company or organization, and persons or property on the ground which might suffer injury (or potential injury) from your actions or lack of actions.

Remember that what takes you thirty seconds to decide and do, a jury may have seven years to decide upon. A jury which was never there, has no sympathy for you or your needs or demands, and that does not understand flying or understand what you understand.

If instead you're talking about regulation, then you need to provide more information. If you're a private pilot and want to know, then the answer is very different from you being a commercial pilot. If you're going to be transporting persons from one location to another, however, you may also be placing yourself in jeopardy of Part 135, esepcially by providing the airplane and volunteering the flights, particularly if you receive back compensation for your actions...and don't forget that compensation includes the time you write in your logbook...even if you're no longer a private pilot and have the capability of flying for hire as a commercial pilot or ATP. Additionally, by offering transportation, depending on the circumstances under which you have done so, other issues may be attached.

Again, more information is needed to address your question.

 

[Geigo]

What I was mainly looking for is how the non-profit may be effected in response to the Executive Director. Not 135/91, command decisions, or personal insurance. I was just trying to see what kind of experience others that may have been in the same situation have had.

I know some companies will let employees fly themselves for work related issues and others will not claiming liability issues. ~~~^~~~’s comments were very helpful. I’d already put a call in to the agent for the non-profit’s general policy. I’ll also check into the “Good Samaritan” laws, which sounds familiar, so I think we do have it. Helps to know the right questions to ask! And don’t worry I won’t come back and say “I got advise from flightinfo so they’re responsible. J



Stupid lawers!

 

[avbug]

"Good samaritin laws" have no bearing on the topic.

Bottom line is that if you are operating for the non-profit organization, both you, and they are wide-open liable for everything you do.

 

[midlifeflyer]

"Good samaritin laws" have no bearing on the topic.

Bottom line is that if you are operating for the non-profit organization, both you, and they are wide-open liable for everything you do.

Bingo.

This area is very state-specific, so this is "in general" and shouldn't be used by anyone to make a real decision -

The companies that have policies that prohibit personal flight on company business often have them because their workers compensation insurers insist o it (or do not cover it). If that's the situation, theoretically, the employee who goes against policy is off on a personal "lark" and there is no company liability. But only "theoretically" - between the "wink wink" the company is giving to the practice and that most states will interpret workers compensation issues in favor of the employee, the employer is indeed left "wide open."

Avbug is also correct that so-called "good Samaritan" laws have nothing to do with the situation. Good Samaritan laws generally apply to situations where you attempt to rescue someone from danger (like the MD or nurse who helps out at the scene of an accident) and is a bit careless, not to situations like this one. Being a "nice guy" is not shield from liability.

 

[FN FAL]

I'm doing some part time accounting for a local non-profit. I volunteered to fly employees if needed for some meetings. The ED asked about where they would be in terms of liability. My guess was that it would depend if flying was required or if they were given a choice to drive. Anybody have any experience in this?

One, stop volunteering for crap...it aint worth it.

Two, if you rent a car for company purposes and kill four of your coworkers in a car accident, how is this different than renting a plane? It's not. That company you are thinking of flying around isn't worth a squat if they don't have "un-owned" vehicle insurance.