Lidle Jury Won't Learn of NTSB's Conclusion as to Cause of Crash
The Lidle jury will never learn that the NTSB concluded the crash was caused by pilot error, and not a defect in the plane, as plaintiffs allege.
The reason is that, by federal statute (49 USC 1441(e)), the NTSB’s conclusions are inadmissible in court.
No part of any report or reports of the National Transportation Safety Board relating to any accident or the investigation thereof, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned is such report or reports.”
As it turns out, the statute doesn’t mean exactly what it says. Some parts of an NTSB report are sometimes admissible. But the courts have made clear that the NTSB's probable cause finding must always stay out of evidence.
Many find that surprising.
Federal statute aside, shouldn’t the jury be told what the NTSB concluded? Isn’t the NTSB, after all, in the best position to determine the cause of the accident?
No and No.
The Jury should Not be Told of the NTSB’s Conclusions
The NTSB allows the manufacturers who are potentially responsible for a crash, such as Cirrus, to participate in its investigation. But the NTSB excludes the victim’s family. This practice, which the NTSB calls the "party system" of investigation, results in probable cause conclusions which favor the industry players. It's one reason why most accidents are chalked up to "pilot error."
It wouldn’t be fair to stick the families involved in the Lidle case with the NTSB’s conclusion given that the NTSB didn’t give them the opportunity to be heard.
The Jury, not the NTSB, is in the Best Position to Determine the Cause of the Accident
Unlike the NTSB, the jury will hear the testimony of experts from both sides of the case. Both the experts retained by Cirrus and those retained by the familes. That places the jury in a better position than the NTSB to determine the true cause of the crash.
I've always found that statutory exemption interesting, because it's in direct tension with Fed.R.Evid. 803(8), which expressly permits "factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness." Sure, the probable cause findings should be treated differently (not least because, as you mention, they're made in a closed-door process), but it stands to reason that the underlying factual findings made by the NTSB should be admissible -- but not binding -- since they usually don't have anything "indicating a lack of trustworthiness."
Thanks for dropping by Max.
As you suggest, the NTSB's "factual findings," as opposed to its probable cause findings, generally *are* admitted.
As an example, the NTSB's conclusion that "the pilot failed to extend the landing gear before landing" must stay out of evidence. But its finding that "upon examination of the wreckage the landing gear switch was found to be in the 'up' position" can come in.
Sometimes it can be tricky.
Mike
Appears the jury returned a defense verdict.
Absent special findings, the only thing that this verdict demonstrates is that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof on their theory of the case. It does not determine the cause of the crash.
The reason most crashes are "chalked up" to pilot error is because most crashes are caused by pilot error. Many "mechanical failure" crashes can ultimately be traced to human error as well, for example when a mechanic fails to safety wire a drain plug after an oil change.
Kind regards,
CS
Yep, 4-2 for Cirrus. http://tiny.cc/lidleverdict