Fred:
Thank you for your opinion.
However for my particular situation, your advise is not correct. I have
consulted my attorney at length about this. Your arguments do not take
into consideration that a great deal of money was spent defending
against frivolous lawsuits. Even if settled, some were unable to recoup
the defense expenses. Just because there has not been a successful law
suit prosecuted, does not exclude the builder from spending large
amounts of money to defend their positions. I for one would not want to
battle the John Denver Estate's resources no matter what my position was.
Posting what amounts to a personal opinion concerning a complex legal
issue as this on a email bulletin board may not be in the best interest
of the builders community. Each builder should seek there own legal
advise for such matters.
Thank you for your comments
Adam
Fred Fillinger wrote:
>
>adam.bruss@gdmac.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>For liability reasons I am parting it out.
>>
>>
>
>You can be conservative as you wish, but numerous articles
>out there by attorneys don't get excited about builder
>liability. Litigation here is rare enough to be considered
>virtually nonexistent (EAA says it hasn't happened yet).
>The problems are: a) Most always no deep pockets for this
>kind of suit; b) No strict liability -- must prove builder
>error and that the error was negligent under possibly a low
>standard of care; and c) Jury reaction. A grieving widow
>never helps, but still, to a jury small planes are
>dangerous. The concept of homebuilts is unfathomable. What
>assumptions was the buyer making? So, to punish a defendant
>like themselves, it must be technically proven to them that
>the builder did something really wrong, and the buyer had a
>right to expect better.
>To play safe anyway, burn your construction log. Save the
>build manual, so you have a record of the revisions used.
>Have a reputable A&P do a condition inspection. He signs
>the log on a blank page, which you carefully remove and
>save. Buyer doesn't know about that; it implies assurance
>of safety (I muse at ads which say "built by an A&P").
>Don't make any statements about its safety. If asked,
>merely refer the seller to the NTSB web site. Re anything
>not done per the manual, save any documentation it works
>just fine on other Europas or other homebuilts.
>
>A case in point is the John Denver case, where a jury might
>try to punish anybody for causing that particular death.
>And the builder appears faulted in this one. Yet reportedly
>the builder didn't have to pay anything. It was settled
>with two corporations who had little to do with the cause of
>the crash.
>
>One of the articles warns of liability in parting it out, to
>the extent there is concern over exposure. You're liable as
>to the parts sold in the same way as the assembled plane,
>and placing them into multiple hands for uses unknown.
>There's deep pockets behind the engine and instruments, but
>you're potentially liable as to fiberglass structure and any
>other component you fabricated or assembled.
>
>Of course, and similar to Lucy's booth in the Peanuts
>cartoon -- "Legal Advice - 5 cents." :-)
>
>Fred F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
|