Liabilities of the A/HB builders

So let me get this straight. E-AB lists the builder as someone other than the kit manufacturer thereby releasing the kit manufacturer of liability?

You do realize the BUILDER is NOT LISTED on the AW Certificate right? The MANUFACTURER is. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So let me get this straight. E-AB lists the builder as someone other than the kit manufacturer thereby releasing the kit manufacturer of liability?

No.

Better yet, since there are several practicing Lawyers who actually read this board and post quite often, please have one or more of them chime in and tell us that indeed there is no problem, absolutely no chance of any liability claims against an EAB builder (as long as he uses EAA paperwork). Also have one or more of them please tell us also that even if a lawsuit was filed the defendant will prevail, and it will not cost anything to defend.

Their silence on this little debate is deafening.
 
No.

Better yet, since there are several practicing Lawyers who actually read this board and post quite often, please have one or more of them chime in and tell us that indeed there is no problem, absolutely no chance of any liability claims against an EAB builder (as long as he uses EAA paperwork). Also have one or more of them please tell us also that even if a lawsuit was filed the defendant will prevail, and it will not cost anything to defend.

Their silence on this little debate is deafening.

Who said there is no chance? Please cite the poster person that said that and I would be glad to correct them. I certainly never said a think about cost of defending a suit.

Nothing is that certain except death, taxes, and the perpetual distain for experimental by X FAA agents. ;)

As for the silence of the attorneys.... Maybe it's time you took the hint. ;)
 
Last edited:
Nothing is that certain except death, taxes, and the perpetual distain for experimental by X FAA agents. ;)

By which FAA "Agents" (whatever those are :rolleyes2: ) ?

I've never stated a disdain for experimental. There are certain models I don't care about, just as their are certified I don't care about.

I don't think I'm alone in this discussion in thinking that, once again, your fanaticism is over shadowing any realistic assessment of the liability of building and selling an EAB.

You keep avoiding a very key point on all of this (what's new? :rolleyes2: )

Better yet, since there are several practicing Lawyers who actually read this board and post quite often, please have one or more of them chime in and tell us that indeed there is no problem, absolutely no chance of any liability claims against an EAB builder (as long as he uses EAA paperwork). Also have one or more of them please tell us also that even if a lawsuit was filed the defendant will prevail, and it will not cost anything to defend.

Their silence on this little debate is deafening.

Who said there is no chance? Please cite the poster person that said that and I would be glad to correct them. I certainly never said a think about cost of defending a suit.

So you are claiming to be a lawyer now???

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
By which FAA "Agents" (whatever those are :rolleyes2: ) ?

I've never stated a disdain for experimental. There are certain models I don't care about, just as their are certified I don't care about.

I don't think I'm alone in this discussion in thinking that, once again, your fanaticism is over shadowing any realistic assessment of the liability of building and selling an EAB.

You keep avoiding a very key point on all of this (what's new? :rolleyes2: )





So you are claiming to be a lawyer now???

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


I certainly know the law better than most here. ;)

So what is the liability difference between certified and experimental? Any? Same? More?

Think case law before you answer that, I would hate for you to be wrong again.:lol:

Key point is what? I've made it several times and stand by it. Including "Run for your lives! :D

Funny how you keep dodging my questions. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
How many times has this happened? Zero?

Run for your lives! :rolleyes:

In the past I have worked for several fortune 100 corporations. Part of what I did involved quantifying the risk associated with customer contracts. On any given day there were 1000's of active legal issues being worked. All of which could be tied back to elaborate carefully drafted contracts. Even with all of that spelled out there was always the treat of litigation by some very capable law firms.

You know how many went to trial? Basicially 0%

You know how many checks were written that would break you or I? Countless.

If you googled these companies and lawsuits, you wouldn't find much with the exception of one or two high profile cases that actually did go to trial.

Does it mean we shouldn't fly or build an experimental? IMO of course not. However it should be discussed, the risks investigated, insurance bought where applicable, AND certain things should be avoided by the people that could be a target for litigation.

Of course if you don't have a pot to pee in... build a jet powered hang glider, do low passes over elementary schools, and give a hearty laugh as you blow by all those wussy pilots to busy checking their insurance policy to ever be a real airman.
 
In the past I have worked for several fortune 100 corporations. Part of what I did involved quantifying the risk associated with customer contracts. On any given day there were 1000's of active legal issues being worked. All of which could be tied back to elaborate carefully drafted contracts. Even with all of that spelled out there was always the treat of litigation by some very capable law firms.

You know how many went to trial? Basicially 0%

You know how many checks were written that would break you or I? Countless.

If you googled these companies and lawsuits, you wouldn't find much with the exception of one or two high profile cases that actually did go to trial.

Does it mean we shouldn't fly or build an experimental? IMO of course not. However it should be discussed, the risks investigated, insurance bought where applicable, AND certain things should be avoided by the people that could be a target for litigation.

Of course if you don't have a pot to pee in... build a jet powered hang glider, do low passes over elementary schools, and give a hearty laugh as you blow by all those wussy pilots to busy checking their insurance policy to ever be a real airman.

So from this one can conclude that many home builders have been put through the legal wringer, we just haven't heard about it. They sure are a quiet lot. They just write a check and keep their mouth shut.

Or maybe, just maybe, the attorney on the EAA webinar wasn't lying. That when lawyers learn about the nature of an EAB, they conclude this ain't gonna work.
 
How many times has this happened? Zero?

Run for your lives! :rolleyes:

If I am not mistaken, there could have been dozens of out-of-court settlements and we'd be none the wiser. That, and something hasn't happened until it has. The is easily one of the least intelligent arguments I've seen on the subject.
 
So what is the liability difference between certified and experimental? Any? Same? More?

None. The manufacturer (be it Cessna for certified, or Joe-Bob for E-AB ) have strict liability to defects in design and workmanship.

If you sell you certified plane, your liability is all but extinguished at that point (absent fraud it is entirely extinguished).

If you sell your E-AB where you are the manufacturer thereof, your liability remains perpetually.
 
You know how many went to trial? Basicially 0%

You know how many checks were written that would break you or I? Countless.

Hmm. I believe a number of us have pointed this out. Lack of a lawsuit to point at is meaningless. It only gets to the lawsuit stage when someone digs their heels in and won't write a check.

To quantify liability one needs to know where the money is going, not just what's happening in courtrooms.
 
If I am not mistaken, there could have been dozens of out-of-court settlements and we'd be none the wiser. That, and something hasn't happened until it has. The is easily one of the least intelligent arguments I've seen on the subject.

YGTBFSM. That is probably the best evidence there is. You guys keep talking about things that may have happened, but have no clue if they really did happen. Then you say, we'll, it could happen some day, just hasn't happened in the past, what ,40 years?
 
Hmm. I believe a number of us have pointed this out. Lack of a lawsuit to point at is meaningless. It only gets to the lawsuit stage when someone digs their heels in and won't write a check.

To quantify liability one needs to know where the money is going, not just what's happening in courtrooms.

To that point: Can anyone cite case law where the builder of an E-AB was rule to not be subject to the same strict liability that a certified manufacturer is subject to?

Strict liability for product defects is a well-established corner of the law. Unless someone can provide case law that says it does not apply, then one must presume that it does.
 
YGTBFSM. That is probably the best evidence there is. You guys keep talking about things that may have happened, but have no clue if they really did happen. Then you say, we'll, it could happen some day, just hasn't happened in the past, what ,40 years?

You know, for 175 years, police did not have to issue warnings to people arrested telling them about their right to counsel, yet in 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that they did in Miranda v. Arizona
 
You know, for 175 years, police did not have to issue warnings to people arrested telling them about their right to counsel, yet in 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that they did in Miranda v. Arizona

Wow, that seals it. So, 100 years from now, a court will rule that Joe Sh*t the rag man in his garage is the same as the Cessna Aircraft Company.
 
Wow, that seals it. So, 100 years from now, a court will rule that Joe Sh*t the rag man in his garage is the same as the Cessna Aircraft Company.

Please feel free to provide some legal principal that says they aren't. They're both manufacturers, and except for the number in the production run, they are still subject to strict liability.
 
Please feel free to provide some legal principal that says they aren't. They're both manufacturers, and except for the number in the production run, they are still subject to strict liability.

For 18 gears if you consider GARA.
 
Please feel free to provide some legal principal that says they aren't. They're both manufacturers, and except for the number in the production run, they are still subject to strict liability.

The legal principle for EAB is Caveat Emptor.
 
For 18 gears if you consider GARA.

OK, E-AB builders are the same as any other manufacturer.

The E-AB zealots here are claiming they have no liability because there is no case law on point. What I'm pointing out is that there is no case law distinguishing them from any other manufacturer either.
 
The legal principle for EAB is Caveat Emptor.

Caveat emptor does not apply to strict liability for defects in design or workmanship.

Do you have any case law to back this up? Because that seems to be the demand-of-the-thread, may as well apply it in reverse.
 
OK, E-AB builders are the same as any other manufacturer.

The E-AB zealots here are claiming they have no liability because there is no case law on point. What I'm pointing out is that there is no case law distinguishing them from any other manufacturer either.

You sure about that? Perhaps there is case law in another area that is similar. Don't ask me to cite any, since your side of the argument only has to put up speculation, conjecture and any other non evidence word you can think of.
 
You sure about that? Perhaps there is case law in another area that is similar. Don't ask me to cite any, since your side of the argument only has to put up speculation, conjecture and any other non evidence word you can think of.

I have cited basic product liability law that is well understood. If you like, I can cite several hundred cases in the field.

Can you cite one that somehow has rule that E-AB is "different" in some way that exempts them from the field?
 
OK, E-AB builders are the same as any other manufacturer.

The E-AB zealots here are claiming they have no liability because there is no case law on point. What I'm pointing out is that there is no case law distinguishing them from any other manufacturer either.

You and I are in agreement. As I've said, GARA is the only restriction from suit in the US that I know of. I find it hard to believe there is some magic super secret EAA law that prevents a homebuilder from being sued. I find it far easier to believe that in most of the cases where this has been considered the builder didn't have sufficient estate to warrant the suit. It does in the one case with which I am familiar.
 
You and I are in agreement. As I've said, GARA is the only restriction from suit in the US that I know of. I find it hard to believe there is some magic super secret EAA law that prevents a homebuilder from being sued. I find it far easier to believe that in most of the cases where this has been considered the builder didn't have sufficient estate to warrant the suit. It does in the one case with which I am familiar.

Ok, so the big time lawyers aren't going to mess around unless millions are involved. But what about all those little lawyers. You know , the ones that are like the little animals circling a Zebra kill just waiting for the Lion to leave?
 
Ok, so the big time lawyers aren't going to mess around unless millions are involved. But what about all those little lawyers. You know , the ones that are like the little animals circling a Zebra kill just waiting for the Lion to leave?

The 'little lawyers', whose conference room is the local starbucks, dont thave the 100k+ it takes to see through a product liability lawsuit.
 
The 'little lawyers', whose conference room is the local starbucks, dont thave the 100k+ it takes to see through a product liability lawsuit.
They might still try to shake down somebody for a settlement by filing a lawsuit.
 
The 'little lawyers', whose conference room is the local starbucks, dont thave the 100k+ it takes to see through a product liability lawsuit.

Ok got it. The lawyer doesn't have the money , the outraged widow isn't willing to put up the money. No consumer group is willing to finance it to put a stop to this dangerous practice, no big time lawyer with a sense of justice or public service is willing to tackle it. Case closed.
 
More like "if we just use a net with bigger spacing, the little fish can swim on through, but they aren't big enough to make a meal anyway so who cares? All's we gotta do is just sit here and wait for a bigger one to swim by and get stuck. It may take a while, but we know the big ones are out there too."

.
Ok got it. The lawyer doesn't have the money , the outraged widow isn't willing to put up the money. No consumer group is willing to finance it to put a stop to this dangerous practice, no big time lawyer with a sense of justice or public service is willing to tackle it. Case closed.
 
Well, it's not based on absolutely nothing. I base it on the fact that the FAA puts the guy in his garage on record of being the builder and producer of the airplane. Vans, or Lancair is not listed.
Not precisely true. The FAA does not decide who is the manufacturer; this is supplied by the applicant.

For example, there are about a dozen Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft listed with "Vans Aircraft Inc." or a variation thereof as the manufacturer name. N94TB and N765BF, for example. There are over 30 Fly Babies listed with variations of "Bowers" for the manufacturer.

Ron Wanttaja
 
More like "if we just use a net with bigger spacing, the little fish can swim on through, but they aren't big enough to make a meal anyway so who cares? All's we gotta do is just sit here and wait for a bigger one to swim by and get stuck. It may take a while, but we know the big ones are out there too."

.

Yeah right. More of,the same argument. I forgot mention no government intervention to protect the unsuspecting. Keep saying the sun won't rise tomorrow and eventually you will be right.
 
And IYO the estimated time required to unravel the entire fact situation would be more or less than an hour?;)

Not precisely true. The FAA does not decide who is the manufacturer; this is supplied by the applicant.

For example, there are about a dozen Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft listed with "Vans Aircraft Inc." or a variation thereof as the manufacturer name. N94TB and N765BF, for example. There are over 30 Fly Babies listed with variations of "Bowers" for the manufacturer.

Ron Wanttaja
 
For example, there are about a dozen Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft listed with "Vans Aircraft Inc." or a variation thereof as the manufacturer name. N94TB and N765BF, for example. There are over 30 Fly Babies listed with variations of "Bowers" for the manufacturer.

Could this be prototypes ?
 
Ok got it. The lawyer doesn't have the money , the outraged widow isn't willing to put up the money. No consumer group is willing to finance it to put a stop to this dangerous practice, no big time lawyer with a sense of justice or public service is willing to tackle it. Case closed.

That is how it works. For a lawsuit to be interesting to a contingency based plaintiffs attorney, it either has to be:
- cheap to bring forward ,
- expensive but with a high payoff in the case of succes,
- part of a larger racket that makes it impossible for the defendant to prevail (lead and asbestos litigation)
 
Who said there is no chance? Please cite the poster person that said that and I would be glad to correct them. I certainly never said a thing about cost of defending a suit.

Nothing is that certain except death, taxes, and the perpetual distain for experimental by X FAA agents. ;)

As for the silence of the attorneys.... Maybe it's time you took the hint. ;)

Since much of this discussion seems to focus on the LACK of information, let me chime in with another aspect.

I've been involved in the homebuilt world for about 30 years, in a number of EAA chapters. Builders are very concerned with liability, and its a regular topic of discussion.

The interesting thing is, everyone is concerned about it...but no one personally knows of cases where builders *have* been sued.

Actual lawsuits, whether settled out of court or not, should fan the flames of the EX-AB liability controversy within the community. But no one I've talked to has been sued, nor do they have friends who have been sued, or knows a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who had been sued. They're concerned about the *potential*...but can't actually point to any actual cases other than the John Denver case.

Just think that if it *was* happening, the news would go through the community like wildfire.

I personally think it certainly *can* happen, and may pick up, with more and more $200,000 homebuilts bringing deeper pockets into the mix.

As for me, I've got $10,000 in my Fly Baby. Though not the builder, my name appears repeatedly in the logs for maintenance issues. When the time comes, I'll probably take the plane down to its component level and sell the commercial hardware (radio, transponder, engine, turnbuckles, etc.). Heck, I earn the value of the airplane back in less than three years by NOT having to pay rent on a hangar....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Could this be prototypes ?
Not for the Fly Babies. :)

Vans itself has ~15 aircraft registered to the company, and none are registered Experimental Amateur-Built. A mix of Experimental-R&D, Experimental Market Survey, etc. All the airplanes I quoted were Experimental Amateur-Built, which a factory-built airplane wouldn't qualify as... and, obviously, Vans doesn't register its company-built aircraft as EX-AB.

Also, there are variation in the phrasing of the Manufacturer name ("Vans Acft Inc", "Vans Aircraft Inc", "Vans RV") that I wouldn't expect from a company. A few combine the "Vans" name with an apparent builder name.

Here's the list, if anyone wants to check history:
N-NUMBER 711ED 765BF 661DJ 221MH 255WA 147KT 94TB 91685 411RG 767GL 44VT 22VR 123CV 277W
Ron Wanttaja
 
As for me, I've got $10,000 in my Fly Baby. Though not the builder, my name appears repeatedly in the logs for maintenance issues. When the time comes, I'll probably take the plane down to its component level and sell the commercial hardware (radio, transponder, engine, turnbuckles, etc.). Heck, I earn the value of the airplane back in less than three years by NOT having to pay rent on a hangar....

For a couple of reasons, your liability from selling the flybaby would be very low:
- it is a lightweight little thing that is unlikely to do much third-party damage wherever it hits
- it is a single-seat aircraft, anyone getting into it will be a pilot and subject to the 'well you knew it was an experimental' argument
- as an intermediate owner, your liability is limited to modifications or maintenance you have done on the plane. Previous ownership of the object itself carries no liability (dont remember the name of the doctrine, something about the flow of commerce)

I would sell a complete flybaby, even if I built it in my garage from plans.

Otoh, had I build a Lancair Evolution, I would sell the turbine and avionics , put a clean cut through the spar on the top and the bottom and sell it as a prop to someone who wants to hang it under the the ceiling of his aviation themed bar.
 
Also, there are variation in the phrasing of the Manufacturer name ("Vans Acft Inc", "Vans Aircraft Inc", "Vans RV") that I wouldn't expect from a company. A few combine the "Vans" name with an apparent builder name.

Combining the kit manufacturers name with the builders name into the manufacturer seems to be common.
 
Combining the kit manufacturers name with the builders name into the manufacturer seems to be common.

Notice the make of each EXP/AHB aircraft in FAA data base.

it will contain the builder's name, it will not be VAN'S RV? it will be (Doe's) RV.
 
That is how it works. For a lawsuit to be interesting to a contingency based plaintiffs attorney, it either has to be:
- cheap to bring forward ,
- expensive but with a high payoff in the case of succes,
- part of a larger racket that makes it impossible for the defendant to prevail (lead and asbestos litigation)

Thanks. With your help and others I'm starting to understand how the real world works. My decision making process up to this point has been severely flawed.
 
IIRC, when I was in law school they said the only published case law precedents were those that had been through the appellate process. Is/was that true?

It is/was not true. Federal district court (trial court) decisions are often reported in the Federal Supplement. (F.Supp.) But that is generaly true for state court opinions.
 
Back
Top