Passenger sues pilot for £100,000 payout

[Jaba-who]

Is this fact or folk legend? It's not something that I'd heard before anyway.As I understood it, all the major factories stopped producing light singles due to the spurious judgement which found the manufacturer responsible for a collision between a high wing and a low wing (or perhaps one was a biplane), one on climb and the other on let-down. The finding was that the designs were defective because they didn't provide sufficient visibility in the direction of travel. The major manufacturers couldn't reasonably continue to produce those designs following that precedent.

Can you point us to a reference to this Piper flight manual autodidact case perhaps? I've tried a number of search terms and not been able to find anything.

There were a number of adverse findings over a number of years in the 1980s over a number of accidents and events.Off the top of my head I can't remember them all.

 

The issues must have only affected singles as Piper and Cessna and Beechcraft continued to make twins ( at least until Piper went broke ). Since the twins were also high or low wing there must have been more to it than that otherwise they would have closed down everything. Only guessing there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The problem is negligence is in the eye of the beholder.I presented a paper at an anaesthesia conference a few years back in which I outlined a study by a national anaesthetic training college.Essentially the study looked at a number of scenarios where anaesthetic complications lead to disasters.

 

The scenarios were presented to an expert panel and they were asked to decide on negligence or not. Only problem was that the scenarios were doubled up and the outcome changed. So the same scenario was modified slightly to hide that it was the same case as another. The outcome was however made opposite. If it was previously a bad outcome it was changed to a good outcome etc.

 

The panel of experts judged that 85% of the bad out come cases were as a result of negligence. But the same cases were only 15% negligent when there was a good outcome. 85% of cases were considered to be within the standard of care and that things go wrong despite the best of care.

 

As for under insurance that's a lot harder to predict what you might need than you might think. - "Blue Sky " claims (ie: basically ridiculously high claims for multi millions) are not unexpected these days if a young person requires a full life of full time care. Or if you have to make up for lost income of a promising young surgeon you would be looking at about a million per year - very easy to go well over the 5 or 10 million that most general aviation insurances cover.

You can never trust academics Jaba-who; they start out with good intentions. but rarely have their feet on the ground.If you provide the solution with the question, (I was going to say 90), but 85% will reverse calculate to get the correct answer.

 

That was a Delphi exercise, were whoever was conducting the exercise wanted to lead the participants to the answer.

 

I was about to give you a simple example, but in medicine the outcomes aren't as predictable as they are in, say engineering, where you could ask: "You're running very late, and the oil cap is missing, nowhere to be found; do you take off?" In that case the question relates to a reasonably forseeable risk. The answer should be 100% no, but if you add the two options (a) "nothing happens" and (b) "oil will be sucked out and over the screen and you will crash", you'll get your 85/25 mix.

 

We first insured race tracks for $5 million around 1984, but by 1988 they were on $10 million, so I think that would be way too light now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is this fact or folk legend? It's not something that I'd heard before anyway.As I understood it, all the major factories stopped producing light singles due to the spurious judgement which found the manufacturer responsible for a collision between a high wing and a low wing (or perhaps one was a biplane), one on climb and the other on let-down. The finding was that the designs were defective because they didn't provide sufficient visibility in the direction of travel. The major manufacturers couldn't reasonably continue to produce those designs following that precedent.Can you point us to a reference to this Piper flight manual autodidact case perhaps? I've tried a number of search terms and not been able to find anything.

I don't know whether its fact or fiction but Product Liability was introduced in the US in the 1970's. It wasn't like our system, and one of the things the manufacturers hated was that lawyers could call in an expert witness, and if that witness could design a product which wouldn't have killed the person, the company was guilty.Freightliner had a case where a couple were driving their semi tractor home in the wet bobtail after a haul, and coming round a corner it slid off the road wrapped around a pole splitting the outboard fuel tank, and incinerating the couple. In court expert evidence was given that if the fuel tanks had been mounted between the chassis rails there would have been no split,, and the couple would have survived. The judge awarded $11 million penalty against White Motor Corp, and $10 million to the estate.

 

So the high wing argument may well have been correct.

 

Also, at that time Cessna and Piper were selling their aircraft as an alternative to car travel, greatly playing down the weather risk factor etc. so that one could also be true.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

There were a number of adverse findings over a number of years in the 1980s over a number of accidents and events.Off the top of my head I can't remember them all.The issues must have only affected singles as Piper and Cessna and Beechcraft continued to make twins ( at least until Piper went broke ). Since the twins were also high or low wing there must have been more to it than that otherwise they would have closed down everything. Only guessing there.

It's no good stating something as fact then saying "only guessing there", at the time it was very cut-and-dried why ALL the majors stopped building light SINGLES, it was because only singles were covered by the precedent. If not they all would have stopped producing twins also.

 

I don't know whether its fact or fiction but Product Liability was introduced in the US in the 1970's. It wasn't like our system, and one of the things the manufacturers hated was that lawyers could call in an expert witness, and if that witness could design a product which wouldn't have killed the person, the company was guilty.Freightliner had a case where a couple were driving their semi tractor home in the wet bobtail after a haul, and coming round a corner it slid off the road wrapped around a pole splitting the outboard fuel tank, and incinerating the couple. In court expert evidence was given that if the fuel tanks had been mounted between the chassis rails there would have been no split,, and the couple would have survived. The judge awarded $11 million penalty against White Motor Corp, and $10 million to the estate.

So the high wing argument may well have been correct.

 

Also, at that time Cessna and Piper were selling their aircraft as an alternative to car travel, greatly playing down the weather risk factor etc. so that one could also be true.

Respect your other examples of US litigation but they're not to do with the precedent of this case. I'm surprised that the whole issue of the majors' instant shutdown obviously isn't better known.

Tomorrow I'll try and find links to the finding and the corporate reactions, though I'm short of time ... a little googling, anyone?

 

 

[Jaba-who]

It's no good stating something as fact then saying "only guessing there", at the time it was very cut-and-dried why ALL the majors stopped building light SINGLES, it was because only singles were covered by the precedent. If not they all would have stopped producing twins also.

Respect your other examples of US litigation but they're not to do with the precedent of this case. I'm surprised that the whole issue of the majors' instant shutdown obviously isn't better known.

 

Tomorrow I'll try and find links to the finding and the corporate reactions, though I'm short of time ... a little googling, anyone?

My only guessing comment was strictly in relation to the forgoing sentence.By that I meant that the litigations only affected ( to the point of cessation of production) singles.

 

Clearly having poor visibility due to having wings in the way is not restricted to singles therefore it would appear, dare I say it, to the man on the Clapham omnibus, that there must have been more too it then just visibility. but I was only guessing about the context of the visibility. What I didn't say but was thinking was that I did not recall the visibility issue. So was only guessing about that.

 

There was in fact a string of litigations.

 

They were regarding events like the seat locking pins on cessnas, the aforementioned manual that seemed to indicate you could teach yourself out of it, another pilot who against instructions on first solo departed the circuit area and flew over his house and stalled while in a turn are three that come to mind.

 

But it's been so long since I did the lecture to the club ( maybe 1998 or so that I can't recall or still have any references ) the cases.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

My only guessing comment was strictly in relation to the forgoing sentence.By that I meant that the litigations only affected ( to the point of cessation of production) singles.Clearly having poor visibility due to having wings in the way is not restricted to singles therefore it would appear, dare I say it, to the man on the Clapham omnibus, that there must have been more too it then just visibility. but I was only guessing about the context of the visibility. What I didn't say but was thinking was that I did not recall the visibility issue. So was only guessing about that.

 

There was in fact a string of litigations.

 

They were regarding events like the seat locking pins on cessnas, the aforementioned manual that seemed to indicate you could teach yourself out of it, another pilot who against instructions on first solo departed the circuit area and flew over his house and stalled while in a turn are three that come to mind.

 

But it's been so long since I did the lecture to the club ( maybe 1998 or so that I can't recall or still have any references ) the cases.

No, nothing to do with any of those. I'll find you the reference when I have time. It was a single case where one sued another where a low wing was letting down to land and a high wing or biplane, maybe a Pitts was climbing after takeoff. The judge found the designers and manufacturers of Singles to be at fault so the majors stopped production instantly. Circa 1994ish ... I think.

[Jaba-who]

No, nothing to do with any of those. I'll find you the reference when I have time. It was a single case where one sued another where a low wing was letting down to land and a high wing or biplane, maybe a Pitts was climbing after takeoff. The judge found the designers and manufacturers of Singles to be at fault so the majors stopped production instantly. Circa 1994ish ... I think.

Not as simple as that. I have no doubt it may have been one of the cases ( can't recall but happy to believe you about it being one)Cessna ceased production in 1986 after years of declining production. Piper went broke ( for the final time) about the same year or maybe a couple later and Beechcraft closed down all its piston singles production about then as well. But they had all been in steep decline in production for years due to many factors but not least if which was reaching the tipping point in liability claims. Part of the reason cited at a congressional hearing a few years later was the liability costs on each unit produced now exceeded the entire cost ( in adjusted terms ) of the aircraft prior to the beginning of the rise in liability claims in the late 1970s.

 

The law treated aircraft accidents as such as cash-cow that there were major law firms whose sole area of action was private general aviation accident suits. There was not one but hundreds of cases.

 

The new law which attempted to revitalise the industry was in the General Aviation Revitalization Act and that was in 1994. Probably That's where that date comes to your mind. But that happened years after the cessation of production.

 

From Wikipedia ( if you believe that):

 

The General Aviation Revitalization Act was passed by the Congress in 1994, and signed by President Bill Clinton in a White House ceremony August 17, 1994.[2]

 

 

[turboplanner]

[edit - Turboplanner got his post in while I was composing this...]1@turboplanner[/uSER], an established doctrine of English civil law is "the loss should lie where it falls" and the law of contract, tort and other branches seeks to transfer the loss where the loss was imposed by a third party through negligence, recklessness, etc (which have different legal meanings). In your example above, you are implying the man in the Clapham Omnibus (i,e, the reasonable man) would not have been able to reasonably differentiate the level of risk posed between an airliner and the flat expanses of major airports and an ultralight and a small grass strip?

In Australia, the man on the Clapham bus is often called "a person of reasonable intellligence"The Australian law is based on the 1932 Scottish Court of Session case: Donoghue v. Stevenson (Case study: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)), so I would be surprised if it was any different to Australia.

 

The problem is in the comprehension, and particularly with A type personalities trying to pretend it doesn't apply to them.

 

In the example I gave, I would say that the majority of people (and as expounded on here over and over again) think that flying is very safe, and in this case, although the strip was much shorter and surrounded by trees, that these aircraft, which has wasn't familiar with in any way could just come back to where they started from. The reasonable man is note expected to have an understanding of aerodynamics.

 

Even in this discussion there is a mixture of UK, US, and Australian definitions being applied to the UK Crash, so it's going to get complicated. Add to that the introduction of Product Liability laws (which applied in the US), and in your example above which refers to negligence and recklessness.

 

In Australia we have the tort of negligence ( referred to in the link I provided), and Culpable negligence, which is a criminal Act (and probably similar to your "reckless" term.

 

You can be hit by on of the other or both.

 

In our discussions, often the point the poster is making is related to culpable negligence, when the subject we are discussing is the Donghue v. Stevenson unintended negligence.

 

It would be very sad if this is what has become of society for two reasons: 1) man's power of deduction and reasoning as been so diminished that he cannot make a reasonable assessment of risk of anything (say the difference between jumping into the sea at Bells Beach and a local swimming pool) and b) an advanced society such as ours cannot educate man enough to be able to make these decisions based on the information presented to them.

It would, but the cases I've seen haven't gone that close; the Bellerini v. Shire of Berrigan was a case of diving into the Murray River, which has been there for tens of thousands of years, but when you read the reasons for the judgement it fits the snail in the bottle case.

 

Of course, if there was neglect or recklessness in the accident, it would be a different kettle of fish and I accept in these circumstances, there would be evidential difficulty, in which case a country may be at liberty - such a the UK - to presume fault of the pilot and therefore ensure the risk is always borne by a specific party and that the party is aware it is they their responsibility to insure for the risk regardless of the actual circumstances. However, in the absence of such specific direction/law from the state, then, as sad as the outcome of the hypothetical case would be and on the assumption there were no neglect, recklessness or legal compliance issue (e.g. to ensure adequate stopway was mowed through the trees), why should someone else be held responsible for what is, to a reasonable man, an obvious risk that on this case materialised?

Not only is negligence always required, but it must be PROVEN by the plaintiff, and many fail

 

Or has our own obligation to assess general risks to ourselves and insure against them been dispensed with?

We can only assess the risks based on our own knowledge; at one point four million Australians and forty million Americans a year were being hospitalised with food poisoning. How were they to tell, from sight, that the food they ate in the restaurant was contaminated with faeces? However there is a definition of contributory negligence, you can bet the defendant's lawyers are going to include that in their counter-claim.DISCLAIMER

 

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. For legal advice you should always consult a lawyer, and I would recommending that you consult a public liability specialist lawyer.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

snip ----Not only is negligence always required, but it must be PROVEN by the plaintiff, and many fail

 

Snip ----

Yes many fail - but clearly this one didn't.

So getting back to my original statement - there must have more to it than a simple accident for a sum to be awarded.

 

Like examining accident causes to act as an education for pilots to avoid it In future the only thing that will be helpful to us is knowing why the courts found the pilot negligent.

 

Does anyone know what the circumstances were which were considered to be reasonable to award the money.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You would need to address UK law and search the case. The details will beon record, just a matterof working out where to look.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

Not quite.

Almost All aviation laws In Australia are based on strict liability.

 

But the aviation laws are not what a passenger could sue under. That would have to be civil law relating to negligence etc.

 

The pilot would be risking two entirely seperate legal battles here.

 

CASA for breaking aviation law ( that’s if he did. If not then CASA would not be interested. ) and civil law for the negligence claim.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not quite.Almost All aviation laws In Australia are based on strict liability.But the aviation laws are not what a passenger could sue under. That would have to be civil law relating to negligence etc.

 

The pilot would be risking two entirely seperate legal battles here.

 

CASA for breaking aviation law ( that’s if he did. If not then CASA would not be interested. ) and civil law for the negligence claim.

Yes that's correct; if you decide you can ignore safety regulations the first you'll be convicted, and then you'll be on the end of a PL suit.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1@Jaba-who[/uSER], not meaning to be pedantic, but when I referred to (bolded in the quote only and not original post):

 

As mentioned above, it appears the UK have imported tortious liability as one of strict liability against the pilot/operator in the case of aircraft accidents. This means there is no requirement to prove negligence, recklessness or other misfeasance on behalf of the pilot/operator to hold them liable. Aus is different in that it appears the general law of tort applies.

, I was referring to the law of negligence (tort) with respect to aircraft accidents and not aviation law in general (ANO, etc).Looks like the UK is somewhat different to Aus in that a breach of an aviation law is not necesarily a strict liability offence, although one's licence may be suspended pending an investigation, whereas all that is needed is an accident to happen and a pax (or third party) to incur a loss, pain or suffering for the pilot/operator to be liable under tort/law of negligence.

(note, there may be certain provisions a breach of the ANO or Civil Aviation Act is a strict liability offence, but it is not in general)

 

 

[Gibbo]

And then there are people on the ground. don’t forget about that liability either..

 

 

[Jaba-who]

And then there are people on the ground. don’t forget about that liability either..

Do you work for CASA?

Only kidding.

 

That’s a line casa is always using to justify medicals being so stringent.

 

In Australia as best I am aware ( and it’s been quoted endlessly elsewhere in relation to that topic )there has never been an injury or death to anyone on the ground from a recreational or a privately operated GA aircraft.

 

 

[Gibbo]

In Australia - there has been. Turbo is aware of my example....

 

 

[boleropilot]

One thing I have learned in life is to never expect justice in a court of law - it doesn't matter if you were right or wrong, drunk or sober, negligent or spectacularly professional, it can (and does with regular monotony) go wrong

 

I was involved in a motor vehicle accident, driving my Jaguar XJ6 Series 1

 

it was late in the afternoon and the sun was low in the windscreen

 

a car came out of the street on my left and I couldn't stop in time, hit him in the B pillar - whole side of the car smashed and the back window too

 

the driver and (miniskirt wearing) passengers left the scene of the accident (guess why) and he turned up 3 days later to visit his local police station

 

At court:

 

my QC was told by the judge to "sit down and shut up" by the judge because "you obviously haven't read your brief"

 

I was continually asked how close I was to the centre white line - I continually replied "I was on MY side of the road, and the road narrowed at the end of the intersection" - the judge thought I was being surly

 

I was asked why the headlining of the Jaguar had to be replaced - I replied that the repairer told me it had to come out to install the new rear window and maybe he should "have a peek at the repair quote notes"

 

I was asked why there was no skid marks from my vehicle - I replied that the Jaguar has anti-lock brakes - what, on a car that old? yes, you obviously know nothing about cars (more surly)

 

The driver stated that his passengers were traumatised by the event and he had to "take care of them asap" - I recall the foul mouthed little sluts swearing at me and my wife as they ran off

 

Those same passengers turned up for court in their very sensible school uniforms and cried and hugged each other the whole time - what a performance! Wonder whose idea that was?

 

And it was argued (of course) that I was only making up the bit about the swearing to discredit the driver by degrading the quality of the company he keeps

 

I did mention that I was under oath and that perhaps the 'poor traumatised girls' might like to make a statement under oath - perhaps they'd like to comment on the alcohol consumption of the driver on the day? wow, surly big time

 

Bottom Line:

 

The judge considered I was 45% in the wrong, even though I was not given right of way (on two counts) and the driver left the scene = he was intoxicated

 

It appears that the judge considered (a) I had not really tried to avoid to accident (for insurance reasons) and (b) the repair order was deliberately and maliciously exaggerated, and © the poor little girls wailing upset him

 

The Aftermath:

 

The driver of the shitebox owed me $2,000 - he agreed to pay $100 a month - he paid $100 and declared bankruptcy - my 'lawyer' sent me a letter telling me that if I didn't pay his (and the QCs) fees within 30 days he would sue me.....

 

Justice? Doesn't exist in any court of law as far as I am concerned - roll the dice, flip a coin, you'll get the same result

 

As for my Degree in Justice Administration? Used to look nice hanging on the wall of my study - I replaced it with a nice picture of my Drifter.

 

BP

 

 

[farri]

Fortunately, I`ve never had to see the inside of a courtroom and hopefully, I never will; the couple of very small issues I`ve had in my life, I`ve been able to sort out myself.

 

I realised a long time ago it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to defend themselves against a claim of 'Trauma', anyone who isn`t prepared to accept the concequences of what could result in taking a passenger flying should fly solo.

 

Frank.

 

 

[boleropilot]

the problem is basically that any skilled (notice I did not use the word 'good') practitioner of law can make an angel look like the devil - that's what he/she is paid to do and many of them are very good at it

 

the only other time I was in court was to witness the trial of the 'juvenile' who murdered my Father in Law (a Rat of Tobruk, no less) by mowing him down as he crossed the road in his electric scooter - on a pedestrian crossing

 

and if I had a choice of whether it was the driver or the lawyer that could be dragged out the back to a set of gallows, my vote would have been for the lawyer

 

BP

 

 

[turboplanner]

the problem is basically that any skilled (notice I did not use the word 'good') practitioner of law can make an angel look like the devil - that's what he/she is paid to do and many of them are very good at itthe only other time I was in court was to witness the trial of the 'juvenile' who murdered my Father in Law (a Rat of Tobruk, no less) by mowing him down as he crossed the road in his electric scooter - on a pedestrian crossingand if I had a choice of whether it was the driver or the lawyer that could be dragged out the back to a set of gallows, my vote would have been for the lawyer

 

BP

I know of many cases where people have hired lawyers and told them virtually nothing, expecting them to go into a Court and "win". Facts win cases.Where one lawyer makes an angel look like the devil, the other lawyer's job in rebuttal is to strip away that disguise, which is what they are trained to do.

 

But its no use giving someone a gun without the ammunition.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

There are defiitely cases that go to court where the outcome is repugnant to the facts. Feel for you 1@boleropilot[/uSER] - though I am guessing this awas a damages claim for pain/suffering rather than the cost recovery for repairs of your car (unless you weren't insured comprehensively at the time).

 

To go off on a tangent, there is a bit more to this than meets the eye though. The (proven) failure to give way would by itslef give rise to the fault of the accident laying with the other driver, regardless of whether you skidded or not, whether you were on the other side of the road or not, or in fact whethe you were drunk or not. There is a seminal 19th century case (can't recall the name) of it where a drunk driver (of a horse and carriage) knocked over and killed a child who had run out onto the road between two parked carriages (true story). At the time, there were laws against being in command of a horse and carriage while intoxicated and one of the charges the driver was brought up on was the then equivalent of death caused by dangerous driving. He was found guilty of his drunk driving charge, but aqitted of the death by dangerous driving based on the fact that it did not matter what his state of intoxication was, but if the accident would have happened with a sober driver at the reins; i.e. it was unavoidable, the fact he was drunk did not contibute to the death of the boy. No driver would have been able to avoid him and therefore, while definitely guilty of drink driving, was not guilty of dangerous driving.

 

It still applies, AFAIK to most road law today - although I would not have a clue wha QLD law is. In the case of a failure to give way, there can be no contributory fault unless you were deliberately avoiding being seen or maybe you were driving so fast that it is reasonable he misjudged how quickly you would be arriving at the intersection - and neither of these seem plausible. Contributory negligence can be a factor in a damages claim for personal injury, pain and or suffering, but even then, from the above, the lack of skid marks may imply contributory negligence but the side of the road you were one means naught if he failed to give way.

 

Sounds like ths was probably in a magistrates or a specialist court rather than a crown court. Magistrartes have a bad reputation as hanging judges and if they don't like the look of your face, it can be a tough ride you are in for. This is of course not true for many, if not most magistrates, but you may have got an unlucky one. Sounds like, however, you could have been awarded $1m and you would have got nought as he would have just delcared bankruptcy - something your solicitor should have advised you before proceedings.

 

Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

 

 

[turboplanner]

Back to topic - the benefit of strict liability for the aviation accidents is that it leaves in no doubt who is going to pick up the tab when it all goes pear-shaped. The only question is how much and it is up to us pilots to determine an adequate level of insurance cover (in the UK).

This is the beloved method of the Australian Government, through CASA, it appears.This seems to deflect liability away from Government, and away from the Arm's Length Body, and where it belongs; with the people who cause, promote and engage in the activity.

 

However, Governments and Bodies quite regularly tweak the system and inadvertently re-assume legal responsibility for that action as a result.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There is another way out of the litigation / insurance maze and that is to not have anything worth suing for.

 

Of course this can also lead to disaster, like if you give it all to your son and he marries a nasty woman who gets it all in a divorce.

 

But if this didn't happen and your property was disposed of, and you are left with a modest superannuation pension, could this be garnished to leave you destitute each week?

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is another way out of the litigation / insurance maze and that is to not have anything worth suing for.Of course this can also lead to disaster, like if you give it all to your son and he marries a nasty woman who gets it all in a divorce.But if this didn't happen and your property was disposed of, and you are left with a modest superannuation pension, could this be garnished to leave you destitute each week?

I'm not familiar with the precise legal pathway, but I believe doing that could even be a criminal offence, but apart from that you can be absolutely sure that each cent will be tracked down to the point where it left your asset pool and landed in another pond, where it fell in that pond and how it's going to come back, possibly with some Accessory charges. I think quite a few have tried that tactic, particularly after the event, and I suspect it's not the optimum method of ever seeing your assets again, particularly when pl insurance is so affordable.