Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

G-CGVO – Air Accident Investigation Bureau (aaib) report …
I was interested to note the many comments here on this unfortunate air accident – but none of you mentioned the communication between the pilot and Air Traffic Control (ATC) recorded in the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (aaib) – that although commented in their report as not relevant to the accident itself – nonetheless it’s important to take into account the whole paragraph in context to realise it’s importance ….

… STARTING ON Page twenty (page 20) of the aaib report, worded as follows,
“From a position just west of Popham, the pilot headed south-east, to keep clear of controlled airspace around Southampton Airport. After making radio contact with Solent Radar he was offered a more direct route and transited the eastern edge of the Southampton Control Zone.”
The report continues
“A recording of these exchanges indicated that the aircraft radio functioned normally and that the pilot used correct RTF procedures.”
aaib report continues …
“However, he was told by ATC that the secondary radar indications from his transponder were “fluctuating wildly” and did not show the aircraft at 2,400 ft amsl, as reported.”
The aaib report continues …
“The pilot remarked that the transponder was “brand new” and at the request of ATC he turned off the altitude encoding function (Mode C). He stated that he would have the system checked on the ground.”

Now bearing all that in mind – I’m struggling to understand how that wouldn’t have had an impact on events!!

Factual Observations
United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

Even things that are “obvious”

Define obvious? The term is both relative and unclear. In principle yes though. A house sold through an agent, as is usually done, is always inspected in detail by the agent. But an agent can’t tear up walls and floors to look for hidden faults and errors. A typical such fault is movement in the foundation due to improper excavation/insulation/drainage and so on. It’s very expensive to fix, and can take years to show. What the results of a case in court will be, is one thing, but the only way for the seller to protect himself is with an insurance.

The seller is responsible in 5 years after the sale, and the responsibility is “objective” as we say (I have no idea if this is the same in English). But it means the seller is responsible even though he didn’t cause the fault, or didn’t know about the fault. The fault can be of any kind, material or legal. The insurance will only cover things that the seller did not cause or did not know about. The case with Graham, would go swift in court. That is a typical “legal error” which the seller both knew about and caused. He would have to pay damage from his own pocket, as no insurance would cover it.

I have to add. The reason it as explained, is because it is explicitly written in law text for purchasing and selling houses. Without that law text, the seller would not be liable for anything, except fraud. At least that is the principle.

Last Edited by LeSving at 31 May 12:00
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

In Norway this is opposite with houses. The next buyer can sue you for everything erroneous that is not specifically mentioned. This is true for hidden faults as well as “creative” or illegal modifications. A standard sales insurance will cover all of it, and really is necessary to protect the seller.

Even things that are “obvious”? In Sweden the seller is only liable for faults that the buyer couldn’t reasonably be expected to find in an inspection of the house.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Graham wrote:

My ex-parents in law lost out big time on this – they bought a house (a converted barn) from the developer and when problems arose they sought redress under the laws pertaining to new house building, but the developer had structured things such that he sold it to them in a private capacity and not from his development business = no liability.

In Norway this is opposite with houses. The next buyer can sue you for everything erroneous that is not specifically mentioned. This is true for hidden faults as well as “creative” or illegal modifications. A standard sales insurance will cover all of it, and really is necessary to protect the seller. Then the next buyer will have to go head to head with an insurance company also, which is much tougher. Your example would definitely work out just fine for the new owners regardless.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Under the LAA permit scheme you require an annual sign-off from an inspector appointed by the LAA.

Yes, and I reckon that will make it pretty hard to sue the seller. The LAA inspector ought to have insurance… it’s the old argument about a dating agency; the more client vetting you do, the more likely you are to get sued if somebody gets murdered, etc. So, chances of Tinder getting sued are exactly zero The chance of one of the 1k-2k “intro” agencies getting sued must be significant.

Car modding related posts moved here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The UK legal position for most private transfers of property is caveat emptor, Latin for ‘let the buyer beware’. It is almost impossible get redress on a private transaction unless, as @Peter says, you have made specific representations on something tangible that turns out not to be true.

If you are in business and selling things to all-comers then the situation is different and liabilities arise through legislation such as the Sale of Goods Act – it must be ‘fit for purpose’, ‘of merchantable quality’ and things like that.

It is extremely unlikely that anyone in the UK could be successfully sued for design defects in a homebuilt aircraft that was crashed by a subsequent owner. For a start they sell it as the previous owner, not the manufacturer, and it is (generally) not a business operation. My ex-parents in law lost out big time on this – they bought a house (a converted barn) from the developer and when problems arose they sought redress under the laws pertaining to new house building, but the developer had structured things such that he sold it to them in a private capacity and not from his development business = no liability.

Where would it end? Consider the 1972 Triumph Spitfire in my garage – just about the only original components are the chassis, the bodytub and perhaps some bits of the suspension. A goodly proportion of its function depends on parts sourced and fitted by me, in fact all the important bits – engine, gearbox, wheels, brakes, steering, you name it. Yet if I sell it and a year later the brakes fail and two occupants are killed am I liable? Of course not.

Peter wrote:

With some kitplane registries there may be an initial inspection by an “authority” but there are none after that.

Under the LAA permit scheme you require an annual sign-off from an inspector appointed by the LAA. It is not as invasive as a CofA annual inspection, but they do not give your aeroplane an easy ride and it is actually a regulatory inspection with a pass/fail element, unlike a CofA annual which is basically a maintenance operation carried out by a licenced professional. I prefer the LAA system as it comes with no requirement to purchase maintenance services from the person/company doing it.

EGLM & EGTN

Would the same not apply to an accident in a homebuilt, which has its LAA permit, documentation etc?

These are obviously excellent questions, and the answer must lie in national legislation, and is probably specific to sales of vehicles.

For example, in the UK, when you sell a house, you have no liability unless you made specific representations (e.g. “rewired in 2019” when it was last rewired in 1958) and that is why buyers send you a long questionnaire with lots of questions, to induce you into making such representations, so you have to answer in a way which avoids answering directly, while not being suggestive of concealment And same if you sell a car.

So I don’t know where any extra liability comes in with a kit built plane. Bad wiring in a house could kill somebody, and there is no law against DIY wiring (well, not yet, though electricians would absolutely love to get one). The difference? Perhaps is it that there is an established process where the buyer is assumed to have done due diligence, on a house or a car.

One possibly relevant principle is the extent to which “authority approval” is involved. With a CofA plane, there is a “rigorous” regime for inspection and maintenance (annuals, etc) and a national CAA rep has to inspect and put it on the national register. This provides a sort of liability backstop (you could sue the maint co. but they “should” be insured). With some kitplane registries there may be an initial inspection by an “authority” but there are none after that.

We do have lawyers here but thus far they have seen silent

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

gallois wrote:

Nothing was found at your careful pre buy inspection and the aircraft passed its last annual and has a current ARC. Who are you going to sue?
Would the same not apply to an accident in a homebuilt, which has its LAA permit, documentation etc?

I would expect the liability is not related to maintenance or previous owners, they could have the aircraft run for 50 years on fuel + oil without touching anything else but the builder does have some liability on design & manufacturing defects unless it’s well documented, although I doubt any of the liability survives if aircraft is built and sold as “not flyable” or design drawing are open sourced

There are load of “quirky and unflyable aircrafts” sitting in museums and ramps, some of them even fly regularly !
This one for example, can I buy it, fly it and sue the guy?

[ duff image fixed ]

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

So you buy a certified aircraft which is 50 years old and has had some 8 to 10 previous owners.
You have an accident which you feel was caused by some passed maintenance anomaly.
Nothing was found at your careful pre buy inspection and the aircraft passed its last annual and has a current ARC. Who are you going to sue?
Would the same not apply to an accident in a homebuilt, which has its LAA permit, documentation etc?

France

Malibuflyer wrote:

My key concern is a completely different one: Perhaps I’m an Angst-driven German that is completely risk averse in your view, but I would never ever bet my life on some home builder I do not know having done a good job. There’s only a handful people on the globe from whom I would buy a homebuilt plane and fly with it – and none of these people would sell any of their babies to me. So the “problem” of having an accident in a homebuilt done by somebody else is extremely theoretic to me…

@Malibuflyer, I’m actually there with you on buying a homebuilt! :)
I can think of myself buying into a project while it is still in progress and take part in it and ensure it is done correctly and see what inspector is checking.

I was just thinking from the other point of view: how the seller can protect themselves. My only thought was that they sell an “incomplete project”, a set of parts. Not the pile of metal but “mostly complete” aircraft. In that case the dependants of the buyer will have to prove that it was not the buyer who has done something wrong. But you are right, if the judge decides something, then there is no way around this.

PS: about the cost – looking at the prices of some finished homebuilts it feels as if they are being sold as a pile of debris + motor/prop + some instruments. :)

EGTR
85 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top