bobbysamd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 5,710
Aviation tort reform
A step in that direction was supposed to be the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. This Act contained a statute of repose, which barred product liability lawsuits against manfacturers of aircraft which were beyond a certain age. Apparently the GARA has shifted the focus of lawsuits to other entities, according to this article I just found:
GARA has had the effect of creating greater liability exposure for everyone
in the aviation industry except those established manufacturers that lobbied
for its protection. Let's look at some specific examples.
Pilots...
The pilot and the "operator" for whom he works have always been the "target
defendants" in general aviation litigation. However, the other prime suspect
has traditionally been the manufacturer. Now the pilot is the prime target
because the manufacturer has immunity.
The pilot who is injured in an accident or his estate, if he did not
survive, cannot sue the possibly negligent operator (company) who employed
him. The pilot is usually an "employee" who under the laws of most states,
cannot sue his employer. The pilot or estate's only recourse is be to
collect the meager workers' compensation benefits paid by the employer's
workers compensation insurer. Now recognize that GARA ends the pilot's
ability to sue the manufacturer that might have designed an aircraft with a
defect that ultimately injured or killed him. The injured pilot or the
pilot's surviving spouse must look to other "suspects" in the aviation
industry for compensation if the crash is not solely due to pilot error and
has resulted in serious injury or death.
Of course, in such an event there may be insufficient insurance to
compensate the victims of a typical general aviation crash. Even small
aircraft accidents often involve two or more people, many of who are high
wage earners. With small, privately-owned general aviation aircraft, the
"shallow-pocket" dilemma is even greater. Many aircraft owners obtain
insurance with "seat limitations" of $100,000 or $200,000. This means that
passengers who die or are seriously injured in the crash may only recover
$100,000 or $200,000 from the insurance company because of the accident. The
practical effect of limited insurance coverage is that passengers and pilots
may consider chasing the assets of the insured who caused or contributed to
the crash. Alternatively, they often look to other insured suspects for
compensation in serious air crash accidents.
...Mechanics And Overhaulers...
Mechanics, maintenance facilities, FBOs and overhaulers are suffering a
greater number of lawsuits. If a plaintiff cannot allege a product defect
against a manufacturer, the next logical focus is whether the product was
improperly maintained or overhauled. Many of these businesses and
professionals must decide to buy more insurance to cover their increased
risk. The cost will be passed onto owners and pilots.
...Component Part Manufacturers...
Parts manufacturers are the new deep pockets in general aviation product
liability litigation. In a typical general aviation aircraft the various
component parts have a short service life. They must be replaced, redesigned
or overhauled before 18 years have elapsed and the component part
manufacturers may have to put their product at risk more than once in that
18-year period. Thus, it should come as no surprise to general aviation
aircraft owners that the cost of replacement parts has skyrocketed.
...Aircraft Owners...
Owners, even if they are not acting as the pilot of the aircraft, may face
additional lawsuits. Plaintiffs will look for some viable defendant with
insurance or assets to pay for their injuries. In some states, passive
aircraft owners (who do not pilot or maintain their aircraft) have minimal
liability exposure. In other states owners are vicariously liable for the
wrongdoing of the pilot at the controls and even the maintenance
professional who worked on their aircraft. The best protection for the owner
is more insurance. (See my article, "Can Aircraft Owners Avoid Personal
Liability for Air Crashes?")
...Dealers, Distributors And Factory-Authorized Service Facilities...
These parties are the manufacturers' partners, but they face substantial
redirected exposure. GARA provides only immunity for manufacturers. Nothing
in the statute protects dealers, distributors or factory-authorized service
facilities. Under the product liability laws of most states, every entity in
the distribution chain of a defective product has product liability
exposure. Thus, the manufacturer, distributor and retailer can often be held
liable for a defective product. That is why a general retailer such as
Sears, for example, is sued when they unknowingly sell a defective lawn
mower or other product that causes injury.
Interesting reading.
A step in that direction was supposed to be the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. This Act contained a statute of repose, which barred product liability lawsuits against manfacturers of aircraft which were beyond a certain age. Apparently the GARA has shifted the focus of lawsuits to other entities, according to this article I just found:
GARA has had the effect of creating greater liability exposure for everyone
in the aviation industry except those established manufacturers that lobbied
for its protection. Let's look at some specific examples.
Pilots...
The pilot and the "operator" for whom he works have always been the "target
defendants" in general aviation litigation. However, the other prime suspect
has traditionally been the manufacturer. Now the pilot is the prime target
because the manufacturer has immunity.
The pilot who is injured in an accident or his estate, if he did not
survive, cannot sue the possibly negligent operator (company) who employed
him. The pilot is usually an "employee" who under the laws of most states,
cannot sue his employer. The pilot or estate's only recourse is be to
collect the meager workers' compensation benefits paid by the employer's
workers compensation insurer. Now recognize that GARA ends the pilot's
ability to sue the manufacturer that might have designed an aircraft with a
defect that ultimately injured or killed him. The injured pilot or the
pilot's surviving spouse must look to other "suspects" in the aviation
industry for compensation if the crash is not solely due to pilot error and
has resulted in serious injury or death.
Of course, in such an event there may be insufficient insurance to
compensate the victims of a typical general aviation crash. Even small
aircraft accidents often involve two or more people, many of who are high
wage earners. With small, privately-owned general aviation aircraft, the
"shallow-pocket" dilemma is even greater. Many aircraft owners obtain
insurance with "seat limitations" of $100,000 or $200,000. This means that
passengers who die or are seriously injured in the crash may only recover
$100,000 or $200,000 from the insurance company because of the accident. The
practical effect of limited insurance coverage is that passengers and pilots
may consider chasing the assets of the insured who caused or contributed to
the crash. Alternatively, they often look to other insured suspects for
compensation in serious air crash accidents.
...Mechanics And Overhaulers...
Mechanics, maintenance facilities, FBOs and overhaulers are suffering a
greater number of lawsuits. If a plaintiff cannot allege a product defect
against a manufacturer, the next logical focus is whether the product was
improperly maintained or overhauled. Many of these businesses and
professionals must decide to buy more insurance to cover their increased
risk. The cost will be passed onto owners and pilots.
...Component Part Manufacturers...
Parts manufacturers are the new deep pockets in general aviation product
liability litigation. In a typical general aviation aircraft the various
component parts have a short service life. They must be replaced, redesigned
or overhauled before 18 years have elapsed and the component part
manufacturers may have to put their product at risk more than once in that
18-year period. Thus, it should come as no surprise to general aviation
aircraft owners that the cost of replacement parts has skyrocketed.
...Aircraft Owners...
Owners, even if they are not acting as the pilot of the aircraft, may face
additional lawsuits. Plaintiffs will look for some viable defendant with
insurance or assets to pay for their injuries. In some states, passive
aircraft owners (who do not pilot or maintain their aircraft) have minimal
liability exposure. In other states owners are vicariously liable for the
wrongdoing of the pilot at the controls and even the maintenance
professional who worked on their aircraft. The best protection for the owner
is more insurance. (See my article, "Can Aircraft Owners Avoid Personal
Liability for Air Crashes?")
...Dealers, Distributors And Factory-Authorized Service Facilities...
These parties are the manufacturers' partners, but they face substantial
redirected exposure. GARA provides only immunity for manufacturers. Nothing
in the statute protects dealers, distributors or factory-authorized service
facilities. Under the product liability laws of most states, every entity in
the distribution chain of a defective product has product liability
exposure. Thus, the manufacturer, distributor and retailer can often be held
liable for a defective product. That is why a general retailer such as
Sears, for example, is sued when they unknowingly sell a defective lawn
mower or other product that causes injury.
Interesting reading.
Last edited:
