Vans Waiver and Release of Liability Agreement

Vans Legal Dept. question

I received a letter from Van's yesterday asking (well, awfully close to 'telling') me to sign at the bottom and absolve them of all liability for my 2nd hand RV on behalf of me, my family, my estate, my heirs, and seemingly my dog, cat, and hamster too.

What wasn't provided in the letter was any incentive or reason for me to voluntarily waive legal recourse. Now, I'm the type that has instructed my heirs to NOT sue any deep pockets they can find in the event of my untimely demise in an airplane, figuring that the odds of my own actions causing said tragedy are on the order of 99%, but... why voluntarily waive the option?

Has anyone else received one of these letters, and what did you do about it?

my .02 cents worth. Your question is timely as I am about to purchase a flying Rv. My gut feeling is not to sign it. Hopefully my heirs would have the same position that you have instructed yours and that would be not to sue. I would think that the letter you speak of is a "CYA" and I can't blame them but I still would not sign it.

I wonder if they would refuse to sell you replacement parts if you don't sign it? I can't think of anything else they could do. Oh, and you might have to remove any decals that say "Van's".

Unless it was required (a condition of the sale) to be signed BEFORE the transaction, don't sign it after.

It isn't crystal clear that a waiver like this would even be effective. It isn't a contract (I assume Van's isn't paying you anything in exchange for your promise not to sue?), so it's kind of hard to see how Van's could enforce such a promise, especially against anyone but you.

I bet it's a little like those signs you see in parking lots, disclaiming any liability for anything, no matter who's at fault. They're basically a nothing, from a legal perspective, but if they dissuade even one person from suing when the lot attendant backs an SUV into their family truckster, they've more than recovered the cost of printing.

apatti said:

I wonder if they would refuse to sell you replacement parts if you don't sign it?

Click to expand...

They haven't refused yet, but I guess time will tell.

I didn't sign

I recieved mine when I requested my Bill of Sale. They sent the letter with the Bill of Sale, so, I filed it away.

More to this story?

I purchased a flying RV-6 nearly four years ago, even bought a Hartzell prop, MT gov, etc. for it thru Van's. Obviously, Van's knows I'm the second owner. I've received no such waiver letter.

Vans doesn't appear to be part of this transaction at all. They may have a beef with the seller and I'd be very nice about it but if they push, personally I'd tell'em to shove it. It really annoys me when companies try to strong arm you into being submissive to their will. I can't remember the last piece of legal mumbo jumbo I signed. Very few companies, signatures or not, will refuse to take my money at the end of the day.

I also never stop on my way out of Best Buy or Fry's to let them check my bags or give my phone number at the cash register when they ask. I know those folks are just doing their jobs. As I see it, I'm just doing my job by educating the guys in line behind me what it's supposed to feel like living in a free country. There's nothing better than hearing the guy being me say:

cashier (sternly): "Phone number, please"

customer (with a newfound confidence): "No!"

It's the little things in life sometimes...


*off my soapbox*

I had a similar situation before surgery. The hospital gave me a waiver to sign releasing them from liability if I need blood during surgery. I asked the Doctor if I had to sign. He said NO. I asked if they would refuse to give me blood if I needed it. He said NO. I asked if I should sign it. He said NO. Did I sign? NO.

DC YXer said:

snip...They're basically a nothing, from a legal perspective, but if they dissuade even one person from suing ...snip

Click to expand...

(Not that this applies to a 2nd hand kit, but) I believe every kit sold to every builder since '73 has come with a standard liability release waiver. I remember signing one.

As for a kit changing hands, it might be something that is auto-generated when they are informed. No idea if this is the case.

Best,
Doug

VERY good point, Doug. When the release is part of the actual contract between the buyer and seller, the issues play out much differently - but there are still issues involved for the lawyers to argue over. (Aren't there always?)

For example, in some states a liability release that is a mandatory part of the sale (i.e., "either you sign this release or you can't buy a [airplane kit/car/house/widget] from us") is considered a "contract of adhesion" and is therefore arguably unenforceable on its face.

The Sonex guys have an interesting approach to this: they'll sell you a set of plans for $600 if you sign their release, or for $5,600 if you don't. (See http://www.sonexaircraft.com/documents/liability.pdf, bottom of the second page.) Looks to me like a pretty clever approach: either Sonex gets a signed release, or they get a little extra cash to fund some extra insurance for that particular set of plans.

P.S. Given the nature of this thread, I suppose I should add my own disclaimer: nothing I write here constitutes legal advice in any way, shape or form, nor should it be relied on as such, and it does not create an attorney/client relationship between me and any reader, commenter, participant, host, or anyone else. This means you...

No Incentive to Sign

I received the "release of liability agreement" from Van's about two weeks ago. I purchased a flying -4 in September of last year and followed the standard procedure of registration with both the Feds and Van's. Additionally, the seller had his attorney craft a liability waiver (he is, afterall, the manufacturer) and I signed it. Curious about what someone else on this thread noted as a "lack of incentive", I called Van's and asked why I should sign the document. The answer was "because as of March 1, we are requesting all purchasers of already flying RVs to do so". Hmm, not exactly compelling. The unsigned release form sits in a file awaiting a reason to do otherwise.

By the way, my -4 is incredible. I have always wanted a -4 and despite having never flown in one (or any Van's aircraft), bought it, got trained in Oregon to fly it, and now can't stop smiling. Awesome plane! Especially if all of your time is in a 172 and Citabria.

Steve

I sold my -7 kit, partially built, with no release of liability waiver. I decided a long time ago that for better or worse, I may be crushed in the process but I wasn't going to grease Juggernaut's wheels.

Sometimes I feel like a crazy old man sitting in the corner of his house with an old musket and an army helmet: "Darn Russian's ain't gonna take my house!". Oh well...there it is.

Why?

Joe,

Never did hear why you sold the RV-7 to go to a Bearhawk.........

Long story but I'll give you the 2 minute version. We bought the Bearhawk plans before the RV-7. Then I got all hung up on this need to do aerobatics. What can I say...I like hanging from the straps. The only other aircraft out there that gave me side by side seating (the "boss" put her foot down on that), reasonable aerobatics, fantastic cruise/range, reasonable price, easy building and enough room for a dog and luggage was the RV-7. So RV-7 it was.

A year or two into it, we reexamined our mission and realized that we really wanted a camping plane. Reasonable cruise, good range, lots of cargo room and the ability to land anywhere. We wanted a pickup truck, not a sports car. When I want to do aerobatics, I'll rent the local Citabria or go down south and rent a Pitts. Heck...I'll just build a Pitts when I'm done with the Bearhawk. You always need a project to keep busy, right?

Once we relaxed that one requirement, the Bearhawk fit what we wanted perfectly. The RV-7 was better in cruise and akro but the Bearhawk is better where it's important to US. I love the RV's. I'll build one someday, I'm sure. I think a -4 would be sweet.

Incidentally, now that I see the other side, RV folks are SOOOO spoiled (I mean that in a good way!). Having so many flying, all the great websites, tailor made systems (RV light, RV wiring harnesses, RV seats, RV interiors etc etc etc) and so much collected knowledge is such a advantage. Vans has really done a fantastic job of engineering easy to build aircraft and RVers have done an incredible job of collecting together information.

I have a short "builders manual" (not really, but it does have some pictures), a few websites, a yahoo group, plans and Bob Barrow's phone number. I'm currently staring at a big welded fuselage frame and wings and trying to envision where every nut, bolt, fitting, light, cable, tube and adel clamp will end up. Challenging for a first timer but I'm a little nutty and actually enjoy this part of it

There is an inherent risk in flying an experimental aircraft. If you are not willing to sign that letter, then you probably should not be building or flying an experimental aircraft. The letter is simply an acknowledgement that you recognize the risks. Of course, I doubt that the letter would actually hold up in half of the 50 states.

Tracy.

Yet to BE tested

thallock said:

There is an inherent risk in flying an experimental aircraft. If you are not willing to sign that letter, then you probably should not be building or flying an experimental aircraft. The letter is simply an acknowledgement that you recognize the risks. Of course, I doubt that the letter would actually hold up in half of the 50 states.

Tracy.

Click to expand...

Yet to be proven. There have been no law suites per say. Van was sued over the RV-8 prototype and a I think. However in general there is no legal presidents. The John Denver death in a purchased LongEZ crash, the fuel selector manufacture and I think Spruce Aircraft got sued but not sure what the settlement was, it was confidential. The builder and seller of the plane (that did modify the plane) did not have deep pockets I guess.

Van is just covering his bases. You know, I know and the pilot in the crash knows but its the survivors that are the ones that get sue happy. The placards on Cessna's about checking fuel or death are an example of base covering. Van has his liability but he just does not want to have to fight I DID NOT KNOW, by the next of kin.

If you plan on building, flying, crashing and being seriously hurt of killed and having you family sue Van's Aircraft don't sign. If you want to acknowledge that this is an experimental plane and you can get hurt flying it and don't want you family to sue Van's Aircraft than sign it. You will likely not win unless you can prove the planes design was at fault. Of course you are the manufacture, Van is not.

thallock said:

There is an inherent risk in flying an experimental aircraft. If you are not willing to sign that letter, then you probably should not be building or flying an experimental aircraft.

Click to expand...

Why in the world would you want to add risk when there is no reason or incentive to do so? Personally, I think that if you receive such a letter and choose TO sign it then you no place building or flying an experimental (or any) aircraft.

From my understanding (i'm taking an Aviation Law class at SIU Carbondale right now... :/) a contract like that is unenforcable unless it has benefit to both sides. If van's gave you any benefits to signing, it *could* be enforcable, but even to a newbee to this kind of stuff like me, just asking you to sign a paper like that is completely worthless. In court, it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. I would guess the intent of it is to dissuade people who don't know any better from suing in the first place. Otherwise, their legal dept should know that it's a waste of time.

From my notes at school:

o Offer
? Has to be specific and objective (Has to be able to be defined)
? The offer has be communicated
? The Offer can also be very restrictive.
o Acceptance
? You can either accept the offer by verbally or by simply accomplishing your side of the offer.
? If the offer is rescinded (the offer-er withdraws the offer before it is completed) this is called Promis stopa?
? If the offer is rejected, that offer is no longer on the table.
? If there is a counter offer, the roles of the Acceptor and the Offer-er is switched, and this could be simply on the terms of the offer, but by counter offering, rejection of the initial offer is assumed.
? The ?UCC? Uniform Commercial Code?? As long as intent is the same, the paperwork doesn?t have to be identical?
o Consideration
? There has to be a benefit to both the Acceptor and the Offer-er.
? It has to be a benefit to the giving party, or a detriment to the receiving party.
? The amount isn?t always the issue.
? The terms of the contract can be modified in any way, as long as both parties agree.
 If this modification is done under direst or if there is no consideration in the new contract (A worse deal for one party than the old contract) then it is non-inforcable.

Click to expand...

May not make sense, but thats what I wrote in class

boswell said:

Why in the world would you want to add risk when there is no reason or incentive to do so? Personally, I think that if you receive such a letter and choose TO sign it then you no place building or flying an experimental (or any) aircraft.

Click to expand...

Please explain exactly how signing the letter adds risk?

PJ
RV-10 #40032

A New Wrinkle

Sitting on my desk is Van's License Agreement. The prior project, Barb Billman (a Van's office gal) notarized my signature on the Agreement at the time I picked up the empennage kit. This go-around (Monday), no one asked for my signature when I picked up the emp, and the next piece of paper in the stack given me was the waiver. We shall see if Van's yields up a bill of sale for the Feds without either of these two papers signed when I pick up the balance of the kit in mid-March.

BTW, Van's mailed me a waiver form about half-way through build of the last project. I trashed it, and I'm happy to report that its loss does not affect the flying characteristics of an RV-7.

John, you really must upgrade your musketry. We have repeating cartridge firearms, now. (Maybe that's all CA will let you own; we're better provisioned in Idaho.) As I recall, you hunker down in Lancaster as does my mother-in-law. I'd like to look over your Bearhawk when we're next down there, as I went through the same trade-offs five years ago. Since we already had a dirt plane (172) I went the RV-7 route.

John Siebold
Boise, ID

RV7ator said:

John, you really must upgrade your musketry. We have repeating cartridge firearms, now. (Maybe that's all CA will let you own; we're better provisioned in Idaho.) As I recall, you hunker down in Lancaster as does my mother-in-law. I'd like to look over your Bearhawk when we're next down there, as I went through the same trade-offs five years ago. Since we already had a dirt plane (172) I went the RV-7 route.

John Siebold
Boise, ID

Click to expand...

Please...if it were up to California I'd be in the corner with a water pistol filled with Perrier and a Telemundo cap. I miss living in New Hampshire. Provided you pass the federal backround check you can basically buy a Howitzer if you wanted to.

Yes...the next time you're in town most definately stop in and check out the Beerhawk. I haven't made much progress on it the last week or so but then I stop and think about all those hours I had to work to PAY for the kit. No wonder I haven't done anything all week...I deserve a break!

jcoloccia said:

Please...if it were up to California I'd be in the corner with a water pistol filled with Perrier and a Telemundo cap.

Click to expand...

Too Funny!!!


[/QUOTE]Yes...the next time you're in town most definately stop in and check out the Beerhawk. [/QUOTE]

BEERhawk??? Sounds like my knid of airplane!

Dgamble said:

I received a letter from Van's yesterday asking (well, awfully close to 'telling') me to sign at the bottom and absolve them of all liability for my 2nd hand RV on behalf of me, my family, my estate, my heirs, and seemingly my dog, cat, and hamster too.

Click to expand...

Another problem with this... I don't think you can sign away the rights of other people. Seems like I have heard about this regarding paternity suits. Supposedly, the father of a child can be sued for child support even if the mother had agreed in writing not to. The right to child support is the child's and the mother can't sign away those rights.

Here, you can sign away your rights to sue. However, I am not sure you can sign away the rights of others who might be harmed by your "wrongful" death. Fido and Muffy will get their day in court!

Understand that I just think this is an interesting discussion. We all know the risk here. And as someone said earlier, if an RV crashes, it is extremely unlikely that it is due to negligence on the part of Van's. Everytime someone sues the deep pockets it makes life worse for the rest of us. Around 1980, W. Edwards Deming (the Quality guru) said one of the U.S.'s 7 deadly diseases is "excessive legal liability which can be swelled by lawyers who work on a contingency basis". We saw this point brought to light when Cessna stopped making GA aircraft back in the 80's and then restarted after the enactment of the Aviation Revitalization Act.

I am not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV. So, ignore any false statements above.

Liability Waiver

I don't see the point of the resistance and even a little hostility towards signing the Liability Waiver sent out by Van's. We are all admittedly and enthusiastically "Van Fans". We all know the dangers associated with aviation and have probably sworn our families not to sue anyone should we be injured or killed in an aviation accident (usually of our own fault). But there also is the probability that a slick ambulance chaser will persuade a grieving loved one to sue "in order to prevent another accident". Declaring our desire not to sue Van or anyone else in writing may be enough to prevent such a suit. Whether it is technically legal and binding is beside the point, GA was very nearly driven into extinction by such lawsuits in the 70's and 80's. Why would we endanger the very thing we all love so much...aviation and the freedom to pursue our passion. Why would we risk having some self serving government bureaucrat step forward to protect us from the dangers of aviation; from ourselves!
I think this comes down to matter of character.
I have already signed the waiver without hesitation. No one forced me into aviation....I had to get into it because I could not stand to be on the outside.
I accept the responsibilities and costs......as we all should as AVIATORS.


Glenn Wilkinson
RV-4
N654RV @ OKZ

I only listen to Bill Handel's "marginal legal advise," and correct me if I'm wrong, but a letter with TWO signatures (both agreed parties) does in fact become a contract. If you send it back and then they sign it too (which would be sneaky and underhanded on the side of Vans) then I believe you are legally bound the the statements held therein.

Hit the nail on the head

Mel said:

I had a similar situation before surgery. The hospital gave me a waiver to sign releasing them from liability if I need blood during surgery. I asked the Doctor if I had to sign. He said NO. I asked if they would refuse to give me blood if I needed it. He said NO. I asked if I should sign it. He said NO. Did I sign? NO.

Click to expand...

Mel,

You've hit the nail on the head. Afterall you can build an RV and never even talk to Van's. They can't force you to sign it.. they know some will...

GTechRV said:

I only listen to Bill Handel's "marginal legal advise," and correct me if I'm wrong, but a letter with TWO signatures (both agreed parties) does in fact become a contract. If you send it back and then they sign it too (which would be sneaky and underhanded on the side of Vans) then I believe you are legally bound the the statements held therein.

Click to expand...

Nope, to be a contract there has to be an offer (Van's giving asking something of you,) acceptance (you signing it) and consideration on both sides (Benefit to both sides.) Now obviously there is a benefit to Van's for you to sign this, but since they aren't OFFERING you anything to sign it (they have no control over the second hand sale) there is no benefit to you. Therefore it's not a legal contract. That said, I'd have no problems signing it if it made Van's happier, since I KNOW it's not worth the paper it's written on.

osxuser said:

Nope, to be a contract there has to be an offer (Van's giving asking something of you,) acceptance (you signing it) and consideration on both sides (Benefit to both sides.) Now obviously there is a benefit to Van's for you to sign this, but since they aren't OFFERING you anything to sign it (they have no control over the second hand sale) there is no benefit to you. Therefore it's not a legal contract. That said, I'd have no problems signing it if it made Van's happier, since I KNOW it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Click to expand...

Additionally:

there needs to be capacity [the ability for each party to enter into a contract [which I hope is the case for anyone building an a/c]] ... and ...

legality [the contracted transaction isn't illegal [such as a drug sale]]

always remember that free advice is only worth 1/2 of what you pay for it...

John

Sign it.

Make your family sign it.

Video tape you and your family signing it and stating in no uncertain terms that you beyond the vebage of the letter will not hold van's responsible for what YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO DO.


Van has designed a plane (or set of planes) that have many hours of safe flying which prove the overall design to be safe and well thought out.

Period.


They have met NO certification,

They have absolutely NO control over how a plane is constructed

And yet some lawyer can sue for any reason if you allow your family to pursue it.


Look at the Carnahan suit.

Stupid pilot trick #343453455: flies a 99% perfectly good airplane into the ground because he can't handle partial panel IFR that INCLUDES a perfectly functioning AI on the copilot side of the panel.

Family SUCCESSFULLY sues the manufacturer of the vacuum pump even though it didn't fail in the incident.

Tell me that's right and just.

If you choose to fly an experimental plane that you didn't even build and have absolutely no assurance was built correctly, you OWE Van the courtesy of a waver of liability. If the Carnahans can sue for a FUNCTIONING vacuum pump, I shudder to think what a family can sue Van for?????

My wife is sworn to zero law suits as far as my aviation activities go. Certified or otherwise.


IMNSHO

Sorry for the diatribe but peoples expectation for absolute safety in unsafe activities drives me APESH!T.

Let's say that due to faulty design or materials a plane falls out of the sky and the survivors sue Van's for their loss. At this point Van's pulls out a piece of paper that says the dead guy left clear instructions for the survivors to "suck it up". I can't imagine this holding any sway with a court. Who cares what the intentions of the deceased were? It's not his loss at issue.

By the way, forget crashing. Suppose after 2000 building hours, you learned that all those rivets were counterfeit and not airworthy. Van's was unaware, so that it doesn't constitute a fraud, but they also failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the rivet's quality. I love Van as much as the next guy, but I'd be the first to demand compensation for my time and money.

Why would anybody voluntarily sign away options without getting anything in return?

Sign It!

I called Van's today. All they are asking for from second hand owners is the same release of liability demanded (and obtained) from the original builder.

This legal system is perfectly capable of bankrupting Van's just as it did Piper, so if you want to be part of the problem, you certainly can. I am surprised that Van has persisted as long as he has.

The point is that my family doesn't need a piece of paper to behave morally as it will regardless. I know that everybody isn't like this but I don't go through life concerning myself with everybody.

I understand Van needs to protect his interests and that is his right. Understand that it's my right to be irratated. If they choose not to sell me anything because I haven't signed, then fine. If they stick to their guns and I want it bad enough then I'll sign it, OK? Simple as that. Why get upset at US? If someone feels the need to protect Vans for the sake of aviation, then get upset at them for merrily selling me parts anyway...

Vans has a great product but they aren't our buddies. They're a business...no more and no less. If any other business, say Dodge for example, sent me a letter after I bought a used Dodge demanding I release them from liability, I'd have a healthy chuckle and throw it in the shredder. Until Van shows up at my house with a bottle of wine and some good cannolis, I'll treat them like I treat any other business.

Someone asked for opinions and got plenty! The one thing we can all agree on, I think, is the whacky state of our civil court system that makes all of this a real concern for Vans.

My suggestion:

If you want to know whether signing this document can form a legal contract, consult a lawyer in your area. Tort law varies greatly from State to State. (Tort and contract law being important, but probably the issue of waiver/indemnity/assumption of risk being the bigger issue, and mainly a set of tort concepts...depending on your location).

Many people have thrown a number of terms around like "contract of adhesion" and "consideration". Each of these explanations is partially true.

But, if you sign a document, it will not be worthless.

Should you? Well many seem to misunderstand that they are the manufacturer of the airplane. Vans supplies you with parts. But you are responsible for building an airworthy plane.

Personally, I think that you should sign it, and if you really want to bank on shifting financial burden to others, should your plane fail, perhaps you should reconsider whether you want to manufacture a plane.

If you want to sue someone when the EXPERIMENTAL plane you bought/fly fails, after you as the owner and PIC become responsible for ongoing airworthiness, perhaps a Cessna is more your speed.

What risk do you think you assume when you buy/build/fly an Amature Built Experimental plane ? Do you really think it is fair to take the cost benefit of a plane which is outside the traditional manufacturer/certification....and then expect the same legal responsibilities to be shared as if you had instead chosen a certified design?

I really want to know what you think a fair alocation of risk is here??

jcoloccia said:

The point is that my family doesn't need a piece of paper to behave morally as it will regardless. I know that everybody isn't like this but I don't go through life concerning myself with everybody.

I understand Van needs to protect his interests and that is his right. Understand that it's my right to be irratated. If they choose not to sell me anything because I haven't signed, then fine. If they stick to their guns and I want it bad enough then I'll sign it, OK? Simple as that. Why get upset at US? If someone feels the need to protect Vans for the sake of aviation, then get upset at them for merrily selling me parts anyway...

Vans has a great product but they aren't our buddies. They're a business...no more and no less. If any other business, say Dodge for example, sent me a letter after I bought a used Dodge demanding I release them from liability, I'd have a healthy chuckle and throw it in the shredder. Until Van shows up at my house with a bottle of wine and some good cannolis, I'll treat them like I treat any other business.

Someone asked for opinions and got plenty! The one thing we can all agree on, I think, is the whacky state of our civil court system that makes all of this a real concern for Vans.

Click to expand...

No John , it's not a Dodge, it's a collection of parts assembled by an amature
aviator that may or may not be airworthy. It may or may not be assembled according to the designers wishes, but more than likely it has plans deviations and untested parts not of the designers choosing. Odds are great that prior to the crash it was being flown in some amaturish fashion that contributed to the accident. The current owner/operator was knowledgeable
of all these potential issues, but he purposely chose not to buy a factory built plane.

Do you understand the difference now.........? SIGN THE WAIVER!!!!!

Fine....if Lego came to me after the fact and asked for a waiver on used legos I bought (i.e. parts). Sheesh.



And just in case anyone thinks this is a silly example...

http://defectiveproducts.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/lego




edit: I can't sign anything anymore as I no longer own the kit... so double

You're Loosing Me

jcoloccia said:

Fine....if Lego came to me after the fact and asked for a waiver on used legos I bought (i.e. parts). Sheesh.



And just in case anyone thinks this is a silly example...

http://defectiveproducts.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/lego




edit: I can't sign anything anymore as I no longer own the kit... so double

Click to expand...

Legos?????? You're loosing me now John...............

Deuskid said:

always remember that free advice is only worth 1/2 of what you pay for it...

Click to expand...

Like I said. Marginal legal advise - well, at least if the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning for others. I would stash the letter away if you don't feel comfortable signing it. Speaking on principle, there shouldn't be anything wrong with agreeing to the terms (from what others have said). I wouldn't blame Van's for trying to cover their own butts either. After all, quoting Kevin Horton:

It is amazing how creative some idiots can be at finding ways to screw up.

I wonder if Carnahan Sr. and Son would have supported the law suit the wife brought. After this interresting thread came up I specifically told my wife not to sue anyone if I auger in unless something trully criminal was done to assist me in screwing it into the ground.


The thing about our legal system that burns me so badly is that anyone can bring suit for nearly any reason and you have to spend possibly huge sums of money to defend what can frequently be seen as a bogus legal grab for cash. The fact that so many companies settle out of court to avoid the certain legal fees instead of uncertain verdicts shows the sad state of the system.

I take umbrage at disparagement of our legal system. It?s the best in the world. Not perfect maybe, but a darn sight better than anywhere else and we?d be d****d fools to trade it for something else.

In our system people who literally cannot afford anything have the right and ability to seek recompense when they?ve been injured by someone else - deliberately or negligently. And they can ask 12 disinterested laymen from their own community to decide if their case is good.

Our problem is ourselves - our national epidemic of greed - not our legal system. We all want more than we?re willing to pay. We want to drive SUVs and fly fast airplanes, but we want to fill the tanks with cheap gas. We want lower taxes, but we want more government benefits. We want guarantees from our doctors and hospitals, but we want cheap medical insurance. We want national security, but we don?t want to make military sacrifices. We want more of everything, and we want it all - now - and for less.

The fact that so many companies settle out of court to avoid the certain legal fees instead of uncertain verdicts shows that they?re likely exercising good judgment!! One - they may be responsible for the plaintiff?s injury. Two - they recognize that good business generally tries to minimize expenses. Three - they understand that some or all of the 12 disinterested laymen on the jury are probably just as greedy as the plaintiff, and wishing they were plaintiffs instead of jurors.

And that?s my last rant for a while - I promise.

AMEN!

Sign the Waiver

Ahha! A bona fide ambulance chaser! Question.....Should Van's be held liable when an experimental airplane, built for educational and recreational purposes, is re-sold to a second private party? This is a hobby project built by amatures. Why expose it to the ravages of our tort system. Van's sells these parts and plans at rock bottom prices. There is no margin for a staff of lawyers like Cessna and Lycoming have. Why not sign a release and keep our sport affordable?

If Van's is exposed to the same "excellent" legal system that wrecked Piper, Mooney, Grumman, Champion and countless others, we can expect like results. Sign the waiver, or buy a factory-built plane.

Ahha! A bona fide ambulance chaser!
Wrong - I?m a probate lawyer. And, I don?t care for what some plaintiffs and some plaintiff?s lawyers have done any more than you do.

Question.....Should Van's be held liable when an experimental airplane, built for educational and recreational purposes, is re-sold to a second private party?
There?s no liability for the sale - add some more facts - what happened - what?s the injury??

This is a hobby project built by amatures.
So what? Are you suggesting hobbies and amateurs should be exempt from potential liability - for what reason??

Why expose it to the ravages of our tort system.
You mean our national greed - our tort system is only what we make of it.

Van's sells these parts and plans at rock bottom prices.
So what? Are you suggesting low margin businesses should be exempt from potential liability - for what reason??

There is no margin for a staff of lawyers like Cessna and Lycoming have.
So what? See above.

Why not sign a release and keep our sport affordable?
Why?? I may in fact some day suffer injury directly attributable to Van?s - and so might you. I?d suggest you not sign such a release.

If Van's is exposed to the same "excellent" legal system that wrecked Piper, Mooney, Grumman, Champion and countless others, we can expect like results.
Look in the mirror. Our legal system didn?t wreck them - ?we? did.

Sign the waiver, or buy a factory-built plane.
See above.

jhphillips said:

Ahha! A bona fide ambulance chaser!
Wrong - I?m a probate lawyer. And, I don?t care for what some plaintiffs and some plaintiff?s lawyers have done any more than you do.

Question.....Should Van's be held liable when an experimental airplane, built for educational and recreational purposes, is re-sold to a second private party?
There?s no liability for the sale - add some more facts - what happened - what?s the injury??

This is a hobby project built by amatures.
So what? Are you suggesting hobbies and amateurs should be exempt from potential liability - for what reason??

Why expose it to the ravages of our tort system.
You mean our national greed - our tort system is only what we make of it.

Van's sells these parts and plans at rock bottom prices.
So what? Are you suggesting low margin businesses should be exempt from potential liability - for what reason??

There is no margin for a staff of lawyers like Cessna and Lycoming have.
So what? See above.

Why not sign a release and keep our sport affordable?
Why?? I may in fact some day suffer injury directly attributable to Van?s - and so might you. I?d suggest you not sign such a release.

If Van's is exposed to the same "excellent" legal system that wrecked Piper, Mooney, Grumman, Champion and countless others, we can expect like results.
Look in the mirror. Our legal system didn?t wreck them - ?we? did.

Sign the waiver, or buy a factory-built plane.
See above.

Click to expand...

Got to go to work now. Talk to you tomorrow!

Because the tort system (products liability) developed originally from Learned Hand's enterprise liability theory... the theory that ordinary consumers are too far removed from ordinary manufacturers to evaluate quality and that we were better off spreading the cost of injuries over all the consumers of a product.

1. Amature builders are not similarly removed from the suppliers.

2. The builder has the obligation, as a matter of law, to ensure airworthiness, as does the new owner and PIC.

3. There is no cost spreading.

4. Amature built, experimental aircraft are obviously and inherently risky to build and to fly.

5. Low margin business reflect a consumer desire, in this case, to purchase an airplane not yet, ever, subject to products liability litigation, hence there is no cost spreading, or ability to cost spread. It is unfair for those who take financial advantage of this choice, over a Cessna, to the later expect the same recourse they would have had in the vent they had purchased a Cessna.

I think I'd not sign a release unless it allowed me (my estate?) to sue for manufacturing defects or obvious misrepresentations by Van's. For example, suppose a spar extrusion had a metallurgical defect that caused it to fail inside of design limits?

While Van's can hardly be held accountable for our shoddy workmanship or decision to launch into bad weather, they should be held liable if they ship inherently unairworthy parts. ...not that I've heard of that happening, I'm just saying...

OK, I can't resist getting back in here one more time...

I buy a kit manufactured by Van?s. I buy a certified third party engine sold by Van?s. I buy lots of other stuff, some experimental only and some certified, from other suppliers. I assemble the kit parts, following Van?s instructions as carefully as I can. I ask my EAA tech counselor to examine my work periodically. I enlist a couple of ?experienced? friends to help bang rivets and hang the engine. I have the finished airplane inspected by a DAR and he/she signs it off.
I go fly and something terrible happens and I crash in a school yard, badly injuring myself and killing several children, and destroying valuable school property and some private property.
Witnesses on the ground reported the plane didn?t ?sound right? and some thought they might have seen smoke coming from it as it plummeted to earth.

Query - who?s to blame and who should pay for all the injury and death and property damage ??
Query - should some government agency be solely responsible for deciding what happened and assessing blame, or should the people who?ve been injured have the right to examine the facts and attempt to make the determination, and shouldn?t everyone who?s possibly to blame also have the right to examine the facts and attempt to show that they were not responsible??
Query - does Van?s get an automatic ?pass? because it?s a low margin business and I chose to buy a kit from it so that I wouldn?t have to pay Cessna prices??
Query - should the families of the dead children be precluded from suing Van?s because it?s a low margin business ??
Query - what if the facts reveal that a series of events culminated in the crash - e.g., minor mechanical/electrical/engine problems became major mechanical/electrical/engine problems that seriously distracted me, the pilot, and I lost control of the plane?? Is every manufacturer of a ?problem? part partially responsible, or just the manufacturers of certified ?problem? parts?? Should all the parts manufacturers get an automatic ?pass? because I was a p***poor pilot who lost control and a better pilot might have been able to land safely in the vacant field next to the schoolyard??
Query - what liability does the EAA tech counselor have, or my friends who helped bang rivets and hang the engine, or the DAR who signed it off?? I may have paid the DAR, but the tech counselor and my friends were strictly volunteers - should that make a difference if the facts reveal that they were in some way responsible for the crash.
Query - what if I?d signed a ?release? for Van?s?? What difference would that make to my wife and children, and the families of the dead and injured children in the schoolyard.

Bottom line - it?s a very complicated business. There are lots of competing interests and no one has intentionally done ?bad?. Mistakes and accidents happen no matter how careful people try to be. If you put enough of them together in the same airplane, it crashes in the schoolyard. In our system, which I still think is the best, everyone has a right [and the ability thanks to lawyers who are willing to take cases on contingency and to advance lots of their own money to investigate and develop cases] to be heard and to make their case. I don?t think under the schoolyard crash scenario that I described that any of you would categorically deny the injured and dead children and their families access to the courts to try to recover their damages from whomever is responsible - whether pilot, parts manufacturer, engine manufacturer, etc. I think one of the ?problems with the system? that many of us recognize is that sometimes folks with little or no injury (a distant bystander claiming mental anguish, for example) try to get a piece of the action. Another problem is that if the person primarily responsible - the p***poor pilot, for example, has no assets and did not accept his potential responsibility by properly insuring himself, the victims will look to a business that?s less responsible but a lot more solvent, for recovery. But, those are people problems - dishonesty, irresponsibility, etc. Those are not problems of our legal system.
[If I haven?t convinced everyone yet, maybe Doug can start a new poll - where is the system better - and how soon are you moving there??] <g>

I'm glad my tech counselor and neighbors aren't lawyers. If they had any idea how much trouble they could get into just stepping into my garage, I'd never get this thing in the air!

Build carefully. Fly responsibly. Carry liability insurance. Be happy. Don't worry. And be really grateful that you live in a country where you can do all that!!

It is easy to point fingers at the lawyers (I'm not one!)... and heaven knows that I see red anytime the topic of lawsuits, punitive damages, "pain and suffering" come up.

We have become a society of bleeding hearts - with juries willing to award millions. The court system has become another form of lottery... drag in your "poor me" case and try for the jackpot. Sadly - while not the cause - there are too many lawyers making their living supporting that industry. There is always someone to blame - and your money will make me feel better.

In some ways it makes you long for the good old days - when "Stuff happens" and accidents were accidents. What we have now is so out of control it is sickening. Until "We the People" have had enough, stand up, and demand reform... we are a product of our greed.

dj