Cirrus says Cory Lidle crashed because he was inexperienced, not because his controls locked up. But a surprise witness testified that Lidle had flown the East River Corridor successfully four times in the two months before the crash. According to a NY Daily News account, the witness related that Lidle talked with her about his
NTSB: Maintenance-Induced Fuel Starvation Caused Cirrus Crash at Morton, Washington
We knew from the surviving passenger that the Cirrus’ engine quit before crashing at Morton, Washington. But did the engine quit because of a mechanical problem? Or did it quit, perhaps, due to fuel starvation?
I discussed those questions here, days after the accident happened. Now, a year later, the NTSB says the engine failure was the
Jury Verdict Against Cirrus Overturned on Appeal
A pilot flew his new Cirrus into conditions of poor visibility and crashed, killing himself and his passenger. The passenger’s family sued not just the pilot, but Cirrus as well.
Why sue Cirrus? According to the family, Cirrus didn’t train the pilot properly when he showed up at the factory to pick up his new plane, and
US Court Dismisses All Spanair Flight 5022 Crash Lawsuits
A McDonnell Douglas MD-82 crashed in August 2008 while taking off from Barajas Airport in Madrid. 154 on board were killed and 18 were injured. The injured passengers and the families of those killed filed lawsuits in the US against Boeing, which merged with 
McDonnell Douglas in 1997, claiming that the aircraft was defective.
Here’s what
Tesla Crash Case: Why Wasn’t Tesla Sued?
That’s the question I’m asked most often about the case filed by the family of the passenger lost in the Tesla plane crash.
The reason T
esla wasn’t sued is simple. Neither a passenger nor his family is allowed to sue an employer for a work-related injury or death. Instead, they are stuck with the meager workers’ compensation
Tesla Crash Lawsuit: Pilot Negligent for Taking Off in Low Visibility Conditions
The family of one of the Tesla employees lost in last year’s Cessna crash at East Palo Alto has filed suit against the estate of the Cessna’s pilot. The suit alleges that the pilot’s decision to takeoff in foggy conditions was negligent.
The air traffic controller told [the pilot]: "The runway is not visible so
Suit Filed Against Karen Trolan For Truckee Tahoe Plane Crash
We’ve filed suit against Los Gatos real estate broker Karen Trolan (pictured), her husband Steve Trolan, and their company, Trolan Enterprises, as a result of the September 2009 plane crash that left the Trolans’ passenger, 14 year-old Marilyn Mitchell, seriously injured.
The Trolans were headed from Truckee Tahoe airport to San Jose. They needed very
US Court Tosses Out All Air France Flight 447 Cases
Most of the families of the 228 passengers who were aboard Flight 447 filed suit in the United States. The reason they chose to file suit in the United States was simple. The courts of other countries provide little compensation to those who have lost loved ones due to the negligence of another. And resolving cases in other
An FBO’s Liability for Negligent Entrustment of Aircraft
An FBO is not supposed to rent an aircraft to a pilot who the FBO knows isn’t competent to complete the planned flight safely. If it does, and a passenger is hurt or killed by the pilot’s mistake, the victim or his family can hold the FBO responsible. That’s the law of "negligent 
entrustment."
A
Defective Carburetor Results in Jury Verdict Against Avco Lycoming
A Philadelphia jury has determined that a defective carburetor caused the 1999 crash of single-engine aircraft that killed four and injured one. The aircraft, a Piper Cherokee Six, was manufactured in 1968. The jury’s verdict included $25 million for compensatory damages and $64
million as punitive damages against the engine manufacturer Avco Lycoming, a division of Textron.
Since the Aircraft was Older than 18 Years, Why Didn’t the General Aviation Revitalization Act Protect Lycoming from Liability?
There are a number of exceptions to the General Aviation Revitalization Act (known as GARA). In particular, GARA doesn’t apply when the manufacturer, in obtaining FAA certification of its part, conceals from the FAA information about defects in the part’s design. The jury in this case determined that Lycoming did just that. Thus, GARA was no defense.
The NTSB Determined the Cause of the Crash was Pilot Error. Its Report Didn’t Say Anything About a Defective Carburetor. Why Wasn’t the Jury Bound by the NTSB’s Findings?
The NTSB’s accident reports almost always favor the manufacturers. That’s because the NTSB relies on the manufacturer for help in determining the cause of the crash it is investigating. The NTSB calls this method of investigation the “party system.”
Of course, asking the manufacturer for help in figuring out if th
ere was a defect in its engine is much like asking the fox for help in determining what happened to the chickens. There’s a built-in conflict of interest. The NTSB is aware of the conflict, but continues using the party system anyway.
Here, after consulting with Lycoming’s experts, the NTSB decided not even to examine the carburetor. Since the NTSB never tore down this critical component, it’s no surprise that the NTSB did not discover any problems with it.
Fortunately for the victims’ families, the NTSB’s conclusions are by regulation inadmissible in court.
Why Did the Jury Award Punitive Damages?
A jury cannot award punitive damages simply because the defendant was negligent, or justContinue Reading Defective Carburetor Results in Jury Verdict Against Avco Lycoming