Aviation Product Liability - Case Study Example

Running Head: AVIATION ACCIDENT LAW CASE Aviation accident law case Name Institution Date Product liability claim against a helicopter manufacturer Facts of the case This case involved a product liability claim against a helicopter manufacturer. According to the claimant, the helicopter clashed as a result of a contact between the tail in flight and the tail rotor. The claimant’s attorney had to prove that indeed there was a contact between the two. The trial judge agreed and ruled that the helicopter had design defection which is a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. As a result the manufacturer was negligence as a matter of law (Lebowitz, 2010). Issue The issue in this case is whether the helicopter manufacturer was negligent in the designing of the helicopter which is a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Another issue is whether the victims of the clash; the widow and the deceased pilot were legible for compensation (Lebowitz, 2010).. Rules The Federal Aviation Act stipulates the technical safety standards for aircraft operated in the U.S. The Act has not established a cause of action for plaintiffs injured due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the safety standards. A plaintiff must establish a cause of action in the individual’s states laws. The causes of action found as a result of an aviation accident are based on the nature of the accident. In case where approach and landing, loss of control, runway incursions resulted to accidents, a claim of negligence against the airline and the pilots could be filed. Such negligence claims comprise of personal injury claims, damage to property and wrongful death claims (Lebowitz, 2010). Aviation product liability Aircraft product liability cases establish whether an accident resulted from a part of the aircraft, pilot mistake or a combination of the two. Strict liability The manufacturer of an aircraft can be found guilty if the victim of an accident can prove that a defect in the manufacturer of the aircraft resulted to injury or damages. This is referred to as strict liability and varies from state to state. Manufacturers would be held responsible for accidents caused by defective products if the product is unreasonably dangerous to be used by an average user. In most states, product liability laws find a manufacturer responsible if a defective aircraft fails to perform as expected when used in the intended way or in a reasonably foreseeable way. In most instances a risk-benefit test may be conducted to establish whether the risk associated with the design of the aircraft surpass the benefits of the design. This implies that the injury will determine if another deign could have been used to avert the problem. Some of the issues that are taken into account in such cases include the cost of the other design and the likely side effects (Sullivan & Steven, 2003). In most cases, the pilot and the manufacturer are found responsible for an accident. For instance, an aircraft may suddenly loose oil pressure as a result of defective oil line and the pilot may overreact to the issue by making an necessary landing leading to injury of crew and passengers. In such a case, the manufacturer would be found liable for the defective oil line while the pilot would be liable for making an unnecessary dangerous landing (Sullivan & Steven, 2003). General Aviation Act This act which was passed by the congress in 1994 defends the manufacturers of non-commercial aircrafts from liability cases for faults on aircrafts which are more than 18 years old. This implies that once an aircraft and its original parts are more than 18 years of age, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for an accident resulting from the faulty product. Normally, the pilot and the owner of the aircraft are sued for failure to repair the product. Criminal Liability in Aviation Criminal liability refers to the likelihood of being prosecuted for an crime in a criminal court. If a prosecution occurs, the consequences may be punitive damages or a jail sentence. Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability by the type of punishment given. Both the federal government and individual states can enforce criminal sanctions on pilots for reckless behavior that causes death, injury or property damage. The main challenge in handling these cases is distinguishing between incidences of negligence and mere accidents (Sullivan & Steven, 2003). Actions that may lead to criminal liability Violating the aviation laws which have been established to maintain safety can lead to criminal prosecution. Transporting dangerous material or controlled substances for instance may amount to a criminal offense. In addition, transporting a concealed weapon or explosive to an airport can also lead to criminal prosecutions. Classification of aviation crimes Aviation crimes are classified into three main categories; criminal negligence, manslaughter and third degree murder. Criminal negligence also known as involuntary manslaughter is where a person is prosecuted for posing a threat to others’ lives that has unpredictable consequences. Manslaughter is where a person accused of an aviation crime is aware that his or her actions are a risk and can cause death to others. Third degree murder is where death results when a person is committing another crime. Analysis Personal injury claims In a personal or damage to property suit, the claimant must prove that the air carrier or one of its workers acted negligently and that due to that the claimant sustained injury or damage to his or her property. In damage to property claims, the jury can award a claimant damages I the amount of repairing or replacing the damage property (Sullivan & Steven, 2003). Defective property Product liability based on the claim that the design of the specific component was defective simplifies a unique hurdle for a plaintiff in that the claimant must create that the manufacturer could have used a sensible, a different design that would have prevented the injury. A claimant might incur great expenses in following a product liability case on the grounds of a defective design. In order to create a sensible design, the claimant will possibly need to hire an engineer or other expert to point out mistakes in the manufacturer’s deign and suggest another design. A products liability suit experiences a challenge in that before the case, the claimant needs to establish the fault in the product. In the case above the plaintiff needs to establish the fault in the helicopter in order to hold the manufacturer liable for the offense (Ormerod, 2005). Mechanical failure In a case in which a mechanical failure resulted to an accident, the claimant may have to prove that the pilot’s acts of negligence caused the accident or that a mechanic negligently failed to find out or appropriately repair part of a plane. In such cases, the claimant can file a law suit against the common air carrier or the owner of the plane. In the case above, the plaintiff can file a suit against the owner of the helicopter and prove that the mechanics failed to detect that the rotor tail was in contact with the flight tail in a negligent manner. A few states may also permit an action for violation of implied warranty of air craft airworthiness in such a situation. Where a mechanical fault in the design or construction of a plane or parts of a plane, the claimant may establish a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the part of the plane or the entire plane (Hart, 1999). Limitation of liability for normal air carriers In cases where the claimant can establish that the air carrier’s negligence caused injury, the claimant might still face a limit in the amount of money a court will give to the claimant. Under the stipulations of the Federal Aviation Act, an air carrier can file with the Civil Aeronautics Board a tariff bearing the rules and regulations for the ferrying of persons. As part of the tariff an air carrier can state a limit to its ability. For instance an air carrier could state a liability limit of 75, 000 per passenger. If an incident occurs based on ordinary negligence, irrespective of the damages a passage might incur, the court would restrict any recovery to $75,000 (Fletcher, 2000). Conclusion In this case, the manufacturer as well as the mechanics of the owner of the helicopter can be held liable for the accident that killed the pilot. The plaintiff needs to prove that accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the mechanics to detect the defect in the aircraft. The mechanics could have detected that the rotor tail was in contact with the flight tail and consequently correct the fault to prevent an accident. Likewise, the manufacturer of the helicopter was also responsible for the defect that caused the accident. The manufacturer should have noticed the contact between the two tails and correct the default which was a threat to human life. In this case, the plaintiff did not need to hire an expert or engineer to provide an alternative design to the manufacturer’s design. The manufacturer of the plane can be found guilty if the plaintiff in the case proves that a defect in the manufacturer of the plane resulted to the death. This would be classified as strict liability and the plaintiff would be awarded the appropriate compensation (Farmer, 2000). References Hart, H.L.A. (1999). Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press Farmer, L. (2000). Federal Aviation Act. The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-45". Law and History Review 18 (2). Fletcher, G. P. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lebowitz, J. (2010). 20-Year-Old Survivor of 2008 Maryland Medevac Crash Sues FAA for $50M. Retrieved on December 16, 2010, from http://www.marylandaccidentlawblog.com/aviation_accidentplane_crash/ Ormerod, D. (2005). Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press Sullivan, A. & Steven M. (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 187 Read More