To sue or not to sue?

[sdgregory 0]

I say no matter what we are talking about. If everything is built to current code then there should be no lawsuit unless gross neglegence can be proven.

If I climb on my roof and fall off should I sue the home builder for making the roof to steep?

If I load 100,000 pounds of brick on the roof and it collapses and the roof was rated for 20,000 should I get to sue?

No. I did not have to put 100,000 pounds on my roof. I did not have to climb up there.

There that better since the wording is the same?

[pilotdave 0]

No. What if you're sitting in your house drinking your cup of tea and the roof falls on you and breaks 50 bones in your body? There was no earthquake, hurricane, or anything. It was just improperly designed, but still passed all inspections and met code (i have no clue how that would be possible, but it has to be this way to be like a design defect on a certified plane).

Here's the thing. We can't sue whoever is in charge of the building code, just like we can't sue the FAA. If a plane passes the FAA certification process and still has a design flaw, why shouldn't we be able to sue the FAA? If a building meets code and still collapses, why can't we sue the...hmm...whovever it is?

Dave

[jlmiracle 7]

  Quote

I say no matter what we are talking about. If everything is built to current code then there should be no lawsuit unless gross neglegence can be proven.

But if someone can be found guilty of gross neglegence, isn't that criminal and shouldn't manslaughter or attempted murder or murder charges be filed? Saying the company knows they sold you a product that WILL kill or injury you is saying they tried to murder you. IMO.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[billvon 3,089]

>I don't ecxpect perfect designs, I expect the tail to stay on below
>160 knots. I don't expect the tail to stay on at 161 knots or more.

A perfect design is one that meets all of its specifications under all operating conditions. Not all airplanes are perfect. Their engines fail even when properly maintained and operated, and they fail before they time out. Their radios get staticky. Bearings in their gyros fail. All of these could certainly cause a fatality. Some other failures, like a compressor-disk burst, control system failure or electrical system failure during night IFR aren't really survivable.

All pilots are taught basic mechanical-failure procedures, like engine out landings, no-flap landings and light signals. They are taught this because designs are so faulty that a pilot can _expect_ an engine or radio or flap-motor failure at some point in his flying career. If every one of these incidents resulted in a multi million dollar settlement, general aviation would cease to exist.

I think a better answer to having an accident and then suing the manufacturer is to decide beforehand whether the risk of a minor or major failure is worth it to you, then decide to participate in the sport/activity accordingly.

[sdgregory 0]

Dave now there I might be inclined to agree. Allow the goverment agencies who set the standartds to be sued and we will certainly see tougher codes but remember that means higher cost and could mean that some things just are never built.

It is not an easy dilemma and has no easy solution but the way things are going it is not going to be worth it to invest in new technologies if everytime asomething happens you can be sued and the end user assumes no risk in its use.

I have no answer for this problem. Only opinions.

[pilotdave 0]

I totally disagree. Wait. Am I allowed to disagree with a moderator? (We're in talkback now, can't delete my post this time!)

You are talking about flap motor failures, instrument failures, and things like that. The question here is about a structural failure directly due to a design flaw. Huge difference.

The things you are talking about are mostly minor hazards. Structural failure is catastrophic. They can't and shouldn't be treated the same way.

Dave

[billvon 3,089]

>The things you are talking about are mostly minor hazards.
> Structural failure is catastrophic. They can't and shouldn't be treated
> the same way.

Right, and some of the things I mentioned (a burst compressor disk, a control system failure) _are_ catastrophic. Few aircraft can be landed without working flight control surfaces. These sort of failures are (thankfully) a lot more rare than minor failures, but they can and do occur. Pilots should decide that they are OK with the risk of that happening before they fly.

[mr2mk1g 10]

You must remember that to avoid legal liability you dont have to prevent any of these things from ever happening, you just have take such steps as are reasonable under the circumstances to avoid them.

What is reasonable depends on the circumstances - building a plane is probably one of the more stringent circumstances for obvious reasons.

In the case of a plane reasonable steps might be to employ a really good designer who has worked in the industry for years; use top quality componants; riggously test your plane; and spend money ensuring quality control.

If a manufacturer does all these things they will most likely escape liability were something ever to happen. The law does not expect people to be superhumans. It does not expect people to be infalable. It also accepts that shit sometimes just happens despite peoples best efforts.

All it asks of manufacturers is that they do what you would expect them to do. The jury is there to see that "our" impression of what a manufacturer should be expected to do is put across. Sometimes in your opinion they get it wrong but then were not there so did not hear the 2 months worth of facts and arguments (for example).

Please try to remember that its not quite as simple as saying that things some times break so you should accept that risk. I accept that risk where the manufacturer has spend $$$ on R&D and on quality control. I do not accept that risk where the manufacturer has doodled on a napkin in his lunch hour and sent his two mexican employees off with a hammer and some gaffers tape.

[billvon 3,089]

>In the case of a plane reasonable steps might be to employ a really
> good designer who has worked in the industry for years; use top
> quality componants; riggously test your plane; and spend money
> ensuring quality control.

>If a manufacturer does all these things they will most likely escape
> liability were something ever to happen.

Nonsense. Cessna was once successfully sued because two airport users were having a feud. Guy 1 parked his fuel truck on the runway to keep guy 2 from taking off; guy 2 tried to take off anyway and ran into it. Result - millions of dollars from Cessna.

The really good lawyer will win over the really good designer any day.

>All it asks of manufacturers is that they do what you would expect them to do.

I agree here. If they falsely represent themselves (i.e. they guarantee their reserves work) then they have liability. However, if the jumper signs a form saying "I understand the gear I am using can fail for no reason" then they are accepting the risk that a failure can occur.

>I accept that risk where the manufacturer has spend $$$ on R&D and
> on quality control. I do not accept that risk where the manufacturer
> has doodled on a napkin in his lunch hour and sent his two mexican
> employees off with a hammer and some gaffers tape.

I guess I'm too much of a libertarian to think that the justice system, rather than you, should decide how someone should design their widget. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with a guy who uses two mexican engineers to quickly build something out of gaffer's tape, wire and cardboard using a hammer - as long as you know what you're getting. Sounds like something built in that manner would make a great display for a trade show but a lousy airplane. If you want to buy an airplane made out of wire, gaffer's tape and cardboard, well, it's your life. But don't sue the guy because _you_ wanted to risk your life in that contraption.

[mr2mk1g 10]

  Quote

Nonsense. Cessna was once successfully sued because two airport users were having a feud

Well I cant speak for the american justice system

  Quote

guess I'm too much of a libertarian to think that the justice system, rather than you should decide how someone should design their widget

That is the opinon of the justice system - not mine. Im just relating what the law is remember, its just my job to apply it as it is, not to make it.

  Quote

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with a guy who uses two mexican engineers

Of course there isn't - thats why its "all steps reasonable under the circumstances". In the circumstances of a home build plane held together with gaffers tape, it may well be reasonable to swing a bit on the wing, spit and say "aw reckon that'll be juuuust fine". For a production airoplane the public may just require a little higher degree of care to be taken.

"resaonableness under the circumstances" is a remarkably fluid test... one of the reasons courts find it so difficult to apply.

[kallend 2,117]

  Quote

>In the case of a plane reasonable steps might be to employ a really
> good designer who has worked in the industry for years; use top
> quality componants; riggously test your plane; and spend money
> ensuring quality control.

>If a manufacturer does all these things they will most likely escape
> liability were something ever to happen.

Nonsense. Cessna was once successfully sued because two airport users were having a feud. Guy 1 parked his fuel truck on the runway to keep guy 2 from taking off; guy 2 tried to take off anyway and ran into it. Result - millions of dollars from Cessna.

.

I believe it was Piper, not Cessna. A Cub being flown from the rear seat with a camera mount in the front blocking his view.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

, why shouldn't we be able to sue the FAA. . .
Dave

My god no. If we could sue the government (all of us taxpayers) one of two things happens:

1 - we all pay a lot more in huge settlements (higher taxes)

2 - or government code will be so restrictive (for the safety of all - "if we can save one life" etc) that all industry will be tied up so bad nothing ever gets built. Oh, wait, it's already starting to happen.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[cloudseeker2001 0]

  Quote

  Quote

How bout you Derek would you sue?

I don't know. If the company knew about the flaw before the crash and did nothing, then yes I would sue. I don't know if I could find that out to help me decide. If they didn't know then I don;t know what I would do. I imagine that laying in a hosipital bed, severly injured, would influence my deciscion.
Derek

Right! See my post about teeth painting!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[carbonezone 0]

Yes dam right I would sue..."""if there was a defect in the design""" (thats a no brainer).
Just because we like to jump out of them (airplanes that is) does not make the aircraft manufacturers any less responsible for safety than other transportation manufactures.

Example: You were in a Bus traveling to a dropzone and the rear wheels fell off "due to design defects". You now have horrible injuries because of the accident. Would you sue the bus manufacturer???? Or should you just forget about it....I mean after all the bus was taking you to the dropzone and you knew the risks of accidents.
Lets be realalistic here people..A Defect is a Defect is a Defect!!!
<>
Tami

[Hooknswoop 19]

  Quote

A perfect design is one that meets all of its specifications under all operating conditions. Not all airplanes are perfect. Their engines fail even when properly maintained and operated, and they fail before they time out. Their radios get staticky. Bearings in their gyros fail. All of these could certainly cause a fatality. Some other failures, like a compressor-disk burst, control system failure or electrical system failure during night IFR aren't really survivable.

If those systems were designed properly and they still fail. That is the risk you take. If the tail falls off at 130 knots, even though the manufacturer says you can do 160 knots with no problem, then the tail was not designed properly. Especially if the manufacturer has since beefed up the design of the tail and, after your crash, issues a SB that says the tail must be strengthened on those aircraft that had been built before they changed the way the tail is built at the factory. If I had a hard landing and damaged the tail and then it fell off, all bets are off and I can’t reasonably blame the manufacturer. If the aircraft is old and the tail falls off, I can’t reasonably blame the manufacturer. If the tail is corroded and falls off in cruise, I can’t reasonably blame the manufacturer.

I have about 75 hours in a T-34A. The aircraft was 55+ years old. If the tail fell off at cruise, I wouldn't have a problem with it, it is 55+ years old. I did wear a parachute while flying it because of the risk of a structural failure, and I was aware of that risk.

Derek

[kallend 2,117]

A couple of years ago a Concorde crashed in Paris killing all on board. The cause of the crash was a piece of metal that had fallen off a DC10 piercing a fuel tank.

Were the Concorde's designers negligent for failing to account for shoddy workmanship on DC10s causing the runway to have debris on it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mr2mk1g 10]

(1) was that forseeable?
If no - not liable
If yes - see (2)

(2) did they do everything reasonable under the circumstances to avoid that risk?
If no - possibly liable
If yes - probably not liable

[jlmiracle 7]

  Quote

1) was that forseeable?
2) did they do everything reasonable under the circumstances to avoid that risk?

Isn't everything forseeable after the fact.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[mr2mk1g 10]

sorry - i edited.

for legal liability it must be forseeable before the fact. Hindsight is 20-20 but the law will achnowlage that humans are not.

[jdhill 0]

  Quote

Were the Concorde's designers negligent for failing to account for shoddy workmanship on DC10s causing the runway to have debris on it?

For a DC10 in particular, no... but designing for F.O.D., debris on the runway or tarmac, yes... the question would be what is a reasonable expectation as to the size of debris...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Hooknswoop 19]

  Quote

A couple of years ago a Concorde crashed in Paris killing all on board. The cause of the crash was a piece of metal that had fallen off a DC10 piercing a fuel tank.

Were the Concorde's designers negligent for failing to account for shoddy workmanship on DC10s causing the runway to have debris on it?

No, of course not. If they had claimed that the Concorde can run over metal debris on it’s take off roll with no damage resulting to the aircraft, then yes, they would have been negligent.

Derek