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

I have seen this before, and given it some thought. Liability concerns, my a$$ Maybe in the end, it was not such a perfectly good airplane? Why else would he consult aviation attorneys and other experts in builder’s liability? It may be many things, but liability concerns? not IMO.

Here is just a little bit of text from the standard EAA Purchase and Sale agreement.

Purchaser acknowledges that Aircraft was designed and constructed as an Experimental
amateur-built aircraft and is not designed nor built to meet any standards of airworthiness as with
a standard certificated aircraft. Further, Purchaser acknowledges that Aircraft does not have an
FAA Form 8130-9 “Statement of Conformity” on file, with the FAA, since there is no FAA Approval
data to which it conforms. Further, Purchaser acknowledges that this is an experimental amateurbuilt aircraft which the builder and owner are or were the experimenters, and that Aircraft was not
built in a permanent jig and parts are not interchangeable with any other aircraft of the same
facsimile. Purchaser understands that the registered owner is free to make such modifications or
changes as he, she, or it wishes. Purchaser acknowledges that Aircraft was certified in the
Experimental (Amateur-Built) Category and, as a result, may or may not contain structural and/or
design defects or inadequate and/or inappropriate materials or components, and that this
Agreement neither includes nor provides any assurances that Aircraft is complete, airworthy,
insurable, fit for service, or capable of being licensed or authorized for any flight, use; or
operational activities of any kind or nature whatsoever Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that
all decisions, judgments, or inspections related to the conveyance, sale, delivery, registration, or
transfer of ownership of Aircraft are exclusively those of Purchaser and are Purchaser’s sole and
absolute responsibility.

In essence, when selling a used homebuilt aircraft, you are not really selling a serviceable and airworthy aircraft, but a bunch of materials resembling an aircraft. The aircraft may or may not work according to whatever it is the buyer actually is going to use it for. This is the truth and the reality, and a few sellers simply cannot sell their aircraft under such terms. This has nothing to do with liability.

NicR wrote:

What’s the story behind the video? Did the builder lose his license and decide it was too risky to resell his plane? Seems a bit odd as there appears to be a thriving market for used homebuilt planes, both in the US and Europe.

I think it’s simply that a few people are risk averse to the point of paranoia.

@LeSving, any seller and buyer can write anything they want in a purchase agreement, or do nothing at all except e.g. complete the FAA aircraft bill of sale form which takes about two minutes.

Silvaire wrote:

any seller and buyer can write anything they want in a purchase agreement

Which is why I think there is something else there… if he really wanted to sell the plane, he could have done so with an agreement that would have prevented any problems of liability (of course that might have meant lowering the selling price).

In the video, he removes the engine and some other parts, maybe the real explanation is that he figured he would get more money selling these parts as parts rather than the complete airplane?

he could have done so with an agreement that would have prevented any problems of liability

this is simply not possible, in any jurisdiction.

It is not the buyer who is the problem. It is everybody else who might bring a claim, in particular the family if the breadwinner dies, or any third party that might be damaged, because they are not bound by any sales agreement. And an agreement that the buyer will indemnify the seller against any such claims is worthless in practice..

Taken together with the following:

• if you get sued and win, you normally still have to pay your legal fees (with very few exceptions)
• a tradition to sue everybody who has any money and run up the cost to force a settlement

I completely understand the builder.

Silvaire wrote:

any seller and buyer can write anything they want in a purchase agreement, or do nothing at all except e.g. simply complete the FAA bill of sale form which takes about two minutes.

Yes, but that’s also the problem. You can sell it as a toy aircraft, not to be flown in the air by a person. Hence no liability. But then, the seller and the buyer know that the single reason to buy it, is to fly it, by the new buyer in the same manner that the original builder built it to fly it, and did. There is no way the seller can sell it as an airworthy, perfectly good aircraft without risking ending up with a potential real liability concern. That is the “problem” here. Some people just cannot wrap their heads around those two aspects at the same time.

It’s a similar thing for passengers in UL aircraft. We now have every passenger sign a similar liability agreement. The reason being UL is by most insurance companies considered to be in the extreme sport category (like skydiving, paragliding, rafting, deep diving and so on). A normal insurance does not cover “sudden accident” for anyone participating in “extreme sports”. To get around that, the passenger is therefore not only a passenger, but also a participant of the “extreme sport”, and signs an agreement that he/she understands the risks and potential lack of insurance.

Cobalt wrote:

And an agreement that the buyer will indemnify the seller against any such claims is worthless in practice..

Then you misunderstand. The agreement is NOT about indemnifying claims. Anyone can sue anyone for no particular reason at any time. If the court take this seriously is another matter. The agreement is about the buyer understanding what is sold and what he/she has bought. 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.

The knife example has nothing to do with the plane example, because unless the knife explodes in your hands and maims you or somehow grows little knife feet and kills someone without you operating it the manufacturer has no liability.

The thing is if you ask a lawyer you’ll always get a doom laden response. Lawyers seem immensely risk averse – it’s a surprise they ever do anything at all outside their professional lives!

You have to assess the probability vs reward.

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