Is a homebuilder liable for an aircraft which he sold on?

LeSving wrote:

Will I be somehow liable if a person uses a knife he bought from me to kill someone? certainly not. Will that prevent some relatives of the killed ones to sue me? not at all. Will they win in court? no way.

Not really a good analogy. This is not about the owner’s misuse, but about manufacturing defects.

It is extremely simple, and I am surprised that this is so hard to accept there is genuine liability. As a manufacturer of an aircraft, you can be liable if

• a defect causes damage, injury or death to somebody
• you as builder are responsible for that defect [typically negligently or deliberately, depending on the country]

And in the US, if you CAN be liable and have some money, it is highly likely you will be sued. You will spend a few 10k on attorneys even if it gets thrown out pre trial, and since this is not an entirely frivolous lawsuit, you will be out of pocket by that amount.

172driver wrote:

Home/amateur built aircraft are bought and sold all the time, every day of the year. There must be more to that story.

For better or for worse, most people go about their lives not spending a minute’s thought on the liability that might attach to their actions. In some countries, these risks can be insured, but for example in the UK general legal insurance and general private liability insurance are simply not available.

This is from CAP1928 on the proposals to allow ab initio flight training in permit to fly aircraft:

Implement a mechanism to provide protection to the original builder of a PtF home- built aircraft which is proposed to be used for ab initio training. One such approach could be: before an aircraft can be used for flight training the original builder of the aeroplane must be made aware that it is to be used for this purpose and invited to agree in writing to the use in consideration for an indemnity. This is to ensure that the builder can make an informed decision to accept the possibility that, in the case of an accident during flight training, they might be held in some way liable for the initial airworthiness of the aircraft.

172driver wrote:

There must be more to that story.

I suspect the “more” is simply that he asked a lawyer about liability, who (in their normal risk averse way) gave the guy a terrifying laundry list of why he was almost certainly going to be sued and a bunch of worst case scenarios. Or he has really deep pockets and knows he’d be a target for an ambulance chaser. Most people sell their homebuilt planes without ever going near a lawyer.

In reality you have to combine the two probabilities (in the US): the probability that the buyer will crash it before the plane is 18 years old, and then the probability that someone will sue the homebuilder after the buyer crashes it. Furthermore you need deep enough pockets to be worth suing (when I bought my first vehicle in Texas, a rather ratty Dodge pickup (we joked “others Dodge while I Ram”), I asked the insurance agent “surely I need more insurance than this, we know how litigation happy people are, won’t someone sue?” (the motor insurance minimum liability in Texas is very low, something like 15k property damage and 45k personal injury – which will buy a paper cup in a US hospital and no more), the insurance agent said basically “You’ve got no money and no assets, you aren’t worth suing so no one ever will”.

The knife example may be silly, but what about a gun? What happened to the litigation in the US against gun manufacturers?

If we are talking strictly about a manufacturer US liability tort case, you have the option of pleading manufacturing defect, design defect or failure to warn.

Unless the tort is caused by one of the three above then the manufacturer is not liable.

I think the wealth of the builder/seller is the reason.
The money gained from a sale v the liability.
The multibillionaire would be a magnet for lawyers.
A UK firm with an excellent reputation was sued years after doing work on a transient aircraft. They were the only substantial firm on its records. It crashed in S America, I think.
(Source: the boss of the UK firm, when I was picking up an engine.)

I think their may be a correlation between over dramatic perception of risk and whatever tendency leads somebody to publish a UT video of them destroying their own aircraft

A tendency towards personal drama is the connection.

Nevertheless it is totally perverse to break up a perfectly good airplane out of fear of legal retribution. Sometimes I really am glad I live in a country which may not offer the “freedom” the US claims but which will not put people in such jeopardy. The product liability laws and practice has not for nothing ruined the American GA builders and pushed them into insane pricing, which has had implications worldwide.

Experimental should simply exclude any form of ligitation. You know it is amateur built, you take your risk. Out.

The question which arises however: The plane was built in 2005. If the 18 year limit is something to be taken serious, then he wrecked the plane 2 years before he could sell it on and be safe. Why not wait and sell on? I think really the sense of personal drama was in this.

Didn’t one famous US pilot have his personal C210 wrecked just to make a point, when he stopped flying? Maybe a bit like the old Egyptian thing, take the possessions to the grave with you?

Sometimes I really am glad I live in a country which may not offer the “freedom” the US claims but which will not put people in such jeopardy. The product liability laws and practice has not for nothing ruined the American GA builders and pushed them into insane pricing, which has had implications worldwide.

I think it is good to know that European laws governing product liability are a direct offshoot of American practice (reprising the doctrine established in Greenman vs Yuba). The only differences are procedural – lack of discovery, no punitive damages, very low compensation for pain and suffering, no jury trial.