Are Cirrus really getting sued after almost every crash?

the first production Cirrus was lost with the test pilot

I believe it was actually a pre-production model with no parachute fitted. Sadly the scenario was one in which having a chute available and using it would almost certainly have saved the pilot’s life.

I see there was a Cirrus crash due to asymmetric flap deployment.

I don’t recall seeing that and would be interested to know which accident it was. There was an accident in a fairly early model in which an aileron came loose: is that the one you mean?

Edited to correct typo.

Somebody tried that with the Sandel case

It was Rick Beach the COPA safety director who actually went and sat through the entire trial. He wrote a detailed account of it, and fascinating reading it made!

Isn’t this fairly common with all “odd” and/or high cost activities. The pilot/owner brag about the super safe Cirrus of his to all his family and all his friends. Then, when he dies in an accident, caused by himself, his family cannot understand it, and someone has to be blamed for tricking him into purchasing this super safe aircraft that wasn’t really all that super safe after all. His family has no understanding of aircraft and flying, other than what they have heard from him, and a lawyer simply follows the money. I mean, a person with a Cirrus obviously got a fair amount of money, and so will his family have (at least until they have used it all on lawyers in their quest for putting the blame on “someone else”…)

This might sound pretty grim, but as someone who makes my living flying, I have taken the time to add some instructions to my will about this. I have a union who will fight my corner if the manufacturer say fights dirty, but if I end up toast through lapse or error of mine, I don’t want people trying to sue just to blame somebody else or to detract from my own mistakes.

I also have a fairly healthy life insurance policy so there should be no need to sue!

NIL : Just because they may get sued doesn’t mean they LOSE !

Check-out how they beat one of the highest profile GA accidents in recent times, the New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle crash .

The widows were ordered to pay Cirrus $80K for bringing them to court ! Good for Cirrus and GA !!!

Link

LeSving has a good point.

@Jonzarno, this was the assymetric flap report.

On the training aspect, the Prokop case started with a USD10million jury award which was then reversed. The reasoning is interesting, but I do not think that it proves or disproves the OP question; perhaps it just illustrates the litigation society in the US. I didn’t spot any cases in Europe…

Prokop case (brought by the estate-widow)

The Supreme Court reasoned as follows:

1. The Cirrus aircraft is a dangerous product [meaning that an aircraft is dangerous, not just Cirrus];
2. Therefore, Cirrus was required to provide instructions on how properly to use the aircraft, including the autopilot, to avoid injury;
3. Cirrus provided such instructions in its manuals and other written materials;
4. No one argues that the written materials were wrong or otherwise inadequate; and
5. The fact that Cirrus failed to provide flight training on the use of the autopilot is irrelevant.

In short, the Court ruled that while a manufacture has a duty to warn the user about the dangers of a product and how to avoid injury, it does not have a duty to train the user. Finally, the Court ruled that, even if Cirrus had agreed to train the pilot, the failure to do what it agreed allows for only contract damages, not wrongful death damages. While damages for breach of contract are inadequate and ill-suited for cases involving personal injury, the Supreme Court ruled that only contract damages were available under the circumstances.

A dissenting judge disagreed:
a party should not be “immunized[d]. . .from tort liability for his wrongful acts” just because those acts “grow out of” or are “coincident” to a a contract .. .If the mere presence of a contract foreclosed all tort liability, medical malpractice claims would cease to exist. A passenger injured in a car accident while riding in a taxi cab would have only a breach of contract claim against he cab driver and cab company. A paid babysitter who failed to prevent injury to a child would be liable only in contract. . .

Full decision (hopefully you have something better to read on a Friday night)

@CKN

Thanks for posting this, now I understand: I had thought you meant it was a fatal accident rather than a CAPS save.

I have no direct personal experience of Cirrus factory training, but the instructors are said to be very highly rated by those for whom they have done transition training. I did do my FAA IR with a flight school owned by two former factory instructors and, if their standards are anything to go by, that assessment sounds quite right.

@Peter

Is Rick’s article anywhere on the public internet?

I read his account in a thread on COPA which was a day by day account of the trial and comprised several posts. As I said, it was a very interesting read.

As you requested last time I did so, I am not posting a link to the thread but anyone with access to the COPA forum should have no trouble finding it