If Van's is responsible when an RV crashes into a school yard, why stop there? How bout the guy who pumped the gas? While we're at it, how bout we go after the aluminum manufacturer, the printer who reproduced the plans, D.R. for providing a source of info, etc. Whenever I think about these kind of lawsuits the word that comes to mind is shakedown. Remember the kid who tried to be the youngest to fly cross country? Crashed in bad weather and somehow the survivor's lawyers pointed the finger at Lycoming and others. Now I hear of this recent case where a guy left a stick tied up with the seatbelt and died. This time I think they went after EAA for not having the right fire extinguishers on hand. It's true that people want something for nothing, but I've seen first hand the pitch lawyers give to convince a plaintiff they've got it coming.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Vans Waiver and Release of Liability Agreement
- Thread starter Dgamble
- Start date
I've stayed out of this thread, cause I really just think it's a good place for folks to vent, but here's my question, then I'll run for cover....
So Van asks for a waiver, you sign it, and send it in. Now what do you do when the mail box fills up with similar waivers from ACS, Lycoming, United Altimeter, Alcoa (they make aluminum), Craftsman (they made the original builder's band saw...)....get my concern? The secondary buyer has no knowledge of who contributed what to the airplane - do folks feel that he is obligated to release everyone from liability?
Many, many years ago, I was an active diving instructor. I was required to carry insurance in order to use my license. We were also required to have every student signa waiver. We were told that the waiver wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, but we were required to have it signed anyway. I sometimes wonder if any of my students ever had an accident while on vacation 30 years alter....and if I should be worried about it?
Just rambling....I have no answer for our current situation....
I'm out!
Paul
So Van asks for a waiver, you sign it, and send it in. Now what do you do when the mail box fills up with similar waivers from ACS, Lycoming, United Altimeter, Alcoa (they make aluminum), Craftsman (they made the original builder's band saw...)....get my concern? The secondary buyer has no knowledge of who contributed what to the airplane - do folks feel that he is obligated to release everyone from liability?
Many, many years ago, I was an active diving instructor. I was required to carry insurance in order to use my license. We were also required to have every student signa waiver. We were told that the waiver wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, but we were required to have it signed anyway. I sometimes wonder if any of my students ever had an accident while on vacation 30 years alter....and if I should be worried about it?
Just rambling....I have no answer for our current situation....
I'm out!
Paul
jhphillips said:
Mr Phillips,
My use of the words "ambulance chaser" was generic in nature, not refering to any specific legal specialty, but to all legal professionals not contributing to the the GNP of our country. Let me assure you, after spending the last two years of my life wrestling with the court system over my mother's estate, I consider probate lawyers to be on a much higher plane.
From the tone of your response, I must assume you bought your plane rather
than built it. Had you built, you would have already signed the release Van's
demands prior to kit shipment.
"Low Margin" is not the operative issue here, rather read "amateur enterprise"
as the key issue. Van's sells a bunch of sheet metal and small parts, totally incapable of harm, until assembled, fueled and launched into flight by the builder or second-hand buyer. The fact that Van has persisted for so many years seems to indicate to me that he has managed to evade the system that has brought down so many good aircraft manufacturers.
The product liability situation we are in is in no small part responsible for the
off-shore migration of our manufactuing base. Wouldn't it be grand if Van felt comfortable quick-building in Oregon instead of the Phillipeans. (Oops, there's that nasty GNP issue again!)
Fueling scandalous liability awards is our outragous system of contingency
financing of lawsuits. Sure greed is a motivating factor, but only made possible by a system that takes 30+ percent of the booty for the conquering attorney. What poor slob who gets too fat on fast food is going to have the cash to take McDonalds to the cleaners without a bunch of self-serving suits to finance the crusade?
If you want the right to sue when your risky hobby eats your lunch, buy a
Beechcraft. For a half mil, you will get 100,000 dollars worth of tin, and
400,000 worth of pin-striped suits. If you build or buy an amateur aircraft, don't expect the same access to the court system. For the rest of us, I say, sign the waiver and mean it. Act like a man and take responsibility for your choices and actions.
Lycoming, ACS, United Altimeter etc all provide finished manufactured products, supplied to the end user, supposedly "fit for purpose", all backed byIronflight said:
massive product liability coverage and acres of lawyers.
Van sells sheet metal, worst case scenario being a nasty sheet metal cut on your hand. Different isssues I think. Besides, my mailbox isn't filling up with releases, as I only was presented with one, prior to kit purchase and delivery
holding Van's harmless for whatever I might do with my boxes of sheet metal.
I thought it was a fair trade, and I have no regrets.
jhphillips
Active Member
Actually, I built my plane. My License to build from Van?s does include the following language: ?It is further agreed by the purchaser and understood that VAN'S AIRCRAFT, INC. makes no warranty, expressed or implied as to the quality or safety of this aircraft.? I don?t think anyone would be deterred from suing Van?s by that language. I did refuse to buy a subie engine because it would have required signing an actual Indemnity agreement.
I seem to recall a lot of criticism of Van?s nose wheel strut recently. Look deep inside and ask yourself what you?d do if as a result of an landing accident attributable to that strut your child, riding as a passenger, was horribly injured. I suspect you might be really glad that you live in a country where you can hire a lawyer to present your case to an impartial jury, and not have to pay a dime to the lawyer if he?s not successful.
No one in business I know, and most likely no one in business you know, asks customers to absolve them of errors in advance. They wouldn?t be in business long.
I have no quarrel with criticisms of individuals who abuse the court system to line their pockets, but to say that the legal system is rotten for that reason is as foolish as saying that we should do away with elections and representative government because a Vietnam ace congressman took bribes. When we consider the merits of our system, I would suggest we not focus on the few outrageous cases that hit the newspapers, but rather consider the hundreds of thousand of cases that go through our courts every year resolving bona fide disputes.
I seem to recall a lot of criticism of Van?s nose wheel strut recently. Look deep inside and ask yourself what you?d do if as a result of an landing accident attributable to that strut your child, riding as a passenger, was horribly injured. I suspect you might be really glad that you live in a country where you can hire a lawyer to present your case to an impartial jury, and not have to pay a dime to the lawyer if he?s not successful.
No one in business I know, and most likely no one in business you know, asks customers to absolve them of errors in advance. They wouldn?t be in business long.
I have no quarrel with criticisms of individuals who abuse the court system to line their pockets, but to say that the legal system is rotten for that reason is as foolish as saying that we should do away with elections and representative government because a Vietnam ace congressman took bribes. When we consider the merits of our system, I would suggest we not focus on the few outrageous cases that hit the newspapers, but rather consider the hundreds of thousand of cases that go through our courts every year resolving bona fide disputes.
Personal Responsibility
John,
Got to say I am a little disappointed. Fully expecting to find a powerful legal defense of our contingent fee tort system, but not a word.......If it makes a lawyer blush, it must be suspect!
The nose strut is an excellent example John. Does seem to be an issue with the nosedraggers, yet you probably still fly yours......am I correct? You have made the decision to operate your aircraft knowing that there are potential issues with that nosestrut. Personal responsibility, that's what experimental aviation is all about!
On the other hand, that nosestrut only seem to snap off when it encounters a gopher hole on grass strips. Maybe our fellow pilots will catch a clue and not operate their nosedraggers on grass strips, or certainly those they haven't walked off for inspection.
Do I understand you to say you passed on the Subaru solely for the inability to sue the seller? I too passed on the Subie, but because of lack of ignition redundancy and gearbox issues. I guesss we all have our private concerns.
John,
Got to say I am a little disappointed. Fully expecting to find a powerful legal defense of our contingent fee tort system, but not a word.......If it makes a lawyer blush, it must be suspect!
The nose strut is an excellent example John. Does seem to be an issue with the nosedraggers, yet you probably still fly yours......am I correct? You have made the decision to operate your aircraft knowing that there are potential issues with that nosestrut. Personal responsibility, that's what experimental aviation is all about!
On the other hand, that nosestrut only seem to snap off when it encounters a gopher hole on grass strips. Maybe our fellow pilots will catch a clue and not operate their nosedraggers on grass strips, or certainly those they haven't walked off for inspection.
Do I understand you to say you passed on the Subaru solely for the inability to sue the seller? I too passed on the Subie, but because of lack of ignition redundancy and gearbox issues. I guesss we all have our private concerns.
Last edited:
jhphillips
Active Member
And I expected to find open minds.
And no, I didn't pass on the subie because I couldn't sue - I passed because the indemnity agreement would have required me to defend the seller against anyone and everyone else who might have sued him.
Anyway, I've had enough fun for now, so I quit. When I sell though, I?ll sure be coming back to this forum - with a release.
In the meantime, fly safe.
And no, I didn't pass on the subie because I couldn't sue - I passed because the indemnity agreement would have required me to defend the seller against anyone and everyone else who might have sued him.
Anyway, I've had enough fun for now, so I quit. When I sell though, I?ll sure be coming back to this forum - with a release.
In the meantime, fly safe.
jhphillips said:
I'm afraid you're way off base here. This is precisely the type of attitude that irks people. I've read the accounts about the nosewheel, I keep flying anyway (with a child passenger), and when it bites me, I shift the blame elsewhere.
As hard as I try to see it your way, I just can't.
JimLogajan
Active Member
szicree said:
And the people who became the victims of the problem prior to your purchase decision - what of them? They had no accounts to go on.
Consider the hypothetical situation where a homebuilt aircraft designer places the fuel selector behind the pilot in such a way that the pilot would have to take his or her hands off the controls to switch tanks - and also inadvertently causing the pilot to brace their body twist by pushing on the right rudder with their leg. It's an accident waiting to happen - and the first time it causes a fatal accident, do you think the designer should not be held liable for not doing any tests on the man/machine interface?
(Okay, it's not really a hypothetical situation - it really happened to someone famous. Though the designer in question deviated from the original designer's design.)
I believe that a large portion of the problems with our system would be resolved if the losing side in a law suit would have to pay for the legal fees of both parties AND that if the plaintiff could not afford to pay then the plaintiff's attorney would be required to pay.
I think the it is a positive that it is so easy to sue. With that access comes responsibility. Attorneys [of which I am not one [by choice because I have quite a few in my extended family ] should, as professionals and officers of the court, act responsibly. Some don't [I sit in law-suit central [Madison/St. Clair Counties in IL] more law suits here than anywhere and suits from around the country get filed here].
Since some lawyers don't act responsibly then amend the system to require they 'have some skin in the game' and pay if they participate in a suit and lose. Right now, for them, it is a 'break-even/win' scenario.
King Henry had it right - as he ascended the throne [in Shakespear's play]: "First, let us kill all the lawyers"...
Per capita we have way too many lawyers
just my opinion...
ymmv
remember to floss...
John
I think the it is a positive that it is so easy to sue. With that access comes responsibility. Attorneys [of which I am not one [by choice because I have quite a few in my extended family ] should, as professionals and officers of the court, act responsibly. Some don't [I sit in law-suit central [Madison/St. Clair Counties in IL] more law suits here than anywhere and suits from around the country get filed here].
Since some lawyers don't act responsibly then amend the system to require they 'have some skin in the game' and pay if they participate in a suit and lose. Right now, for them, it is a 'break-even/win' scenario.
King Henry had it right - as he ascended the throne [in Shakespear's play]: "First, let us kill all the lawyers"...
Per capita we have way too many lawyers
just my opinion...
ymmv
remember to floss...
John
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
jhphillips said:
While I agree with you that the general population's "Greed" is a driving force here, please dont forget a few things.
The legal system (tort) allows the greedy masses to make these stupid, un-justified lawsuits.
The majority of the folks writing laws------legislatures----are lawyers. Whose interest do you think they are going to protect???
There is NO punishment or responsibility placed on lawyers who file stupid, un-justified suites. Just as there is no compensation for defendants who have shelled out megabucks to successfully defend themselves from these bloodsuckers. Any defendant who is not found guilty should have his costs reimbursed by the plaintiff. Sure would stop a lot of BS lawsuits.
Mike
JimLogajan
Active Member
Mike S said:
The quoted material above contains assertions that appear to me to be factually wrong. It is one thing to be off topic, but to present off topic false assertions must somehow rate worse, eh? Anyhoo, no question it is difficult to punish bloodsuckers, but it is nevertheless possible. Here's some background information that indicates lawyers can indeed be held responsible and punished for abuse of the system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_lawsuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Sorry
O.K., I was a bit hasty using the term "no".
But the undeniable truth is that I have never heard of a lawyer ever, I repeat ever, having gotten in trouble for BS lawsuits. Nor have I ever heard of a lawyer, or his client having to reimburse someone for their defense costs.
Not reported on TV, or newspapers. No "a friend of a friend----" stories. No e-mail messages.
When the legal system is changed so that whoever brings any type of suit, and fails to prevail, is then required to pay all defense costs, then I will consider our legal system to have reached a huge milestone in serving the people of this country.
Mike
O.K., I was a bit hasty using the term "no".
But the undeniable truth is that I have never heard of a lawyer ever, I repeat ever, having gotten in trouble for BS lawsuits. Nor have I ever heard of a lawyer, or his client having to reimburse someone for their defense costs.
Not reported on TV, or newspapers. No "a friend of a friend----" stories. No e-mail messages.
When the legal system is changed so that whoever brings any type of suit, and fails to prevail, is then required to pay all defense costs, then I will consider our legal system to have reached a huge milestone in serving the people of this country.
Mike
Last edited:
Mike S said:
There should also be punitive awards due the defendant in addition to the compensatory awards. And the plaintiff's lawyer(s) should have to contribute to the reimbursement in a percentage equal to the percentage they stood to gain if the suit had been successful.
My thinking on this issue has changed somewhat over the past few years. I used to be all for "loser pays everything" but now I support a slightly different model.
It is possible to have a case with some merit but for one reason or another, have the verdict go against you. The prospect of paying a huge multinational corporation's virtually unlimited legal fees would be a huge deterrent to "the little guy" seeking justice - and to his attorney.
My model:
At the time of filing, every suit is subject to review by panel of judges, panel of attorneys, or a similar body. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the suit has enough merit to shield the plaintiff from liability for the defendant's legal fees. The case can proceed regardless of the panel's findings, but if the panel concludes the case lacks merit, the plaintiff can be held liable for the defendant's legal fees if he loses.
Maybe a little out there, perhaps not? Just my .02
It is possible to have a case with some merit but for one reason or another, have the verdict go against you. The prospect of paying a huge multinational corporation's virtually unlimited legal fees would be a huge deterrent to "the little guy" seeking justice - and to his attorney.
My model:
At the time of filing, every suit is subject to review by panel of judges, panel of attorneys, or a similar body. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the suit has enough merit to shield the plaintiff from liability for the defendant's legal fees. The case can proceed regardless of the panel's findings, but if the panel concludes the case lacks merit, the plaintiff can be held liable for the defendant's legal fees if he loses.
Maybe a little out there, perhaps not? Just my .02
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
mdredmond said:
Item 1. I think the loser should pay only if they are the plaintiff. When a defendant is not convicted, it is the same as saying you should never have been here in the first place. Nor should you have had to spend $$$ for defense costs.
Item 2. You are suggesting that we let the wolves guard the sheep.
Mike
Last edited:
JimLogajan said:
Just to bring the discussion back to airplanes and RV's I'm going to respectfully disagree with you, Jim.
Remember that there is one, and only one, person responsible for the safe construction and operation of an experimental. YOU. Even the FAA inspection merely checks that you meet the basic regulations (minimum instrumentation, placards etc) and that your assembly techniques are in keeping with accepted practices (locking nuts used, bolts properly safetyed, cotter pins properly installed, rivets properly driven etc). It says nothing of the design, ergonomics or anything else.
You may choose to trust the designer, you may choose to believe him when he claims the aircraft design is flight worthy, you can choose to believe his structural analysis and load testing and you may choose to believe when he claims that the controls and the design lead to an ergonomic and safe aircraft.
These are all your choices, however. It's up to you to study the design and determine that it's suitable for your needs, and if you determine that it's not it's up to you to make suitable modifications OR ask for a refund on your plans or your kit.
To accept any less responsibility is to require a certification process for experimental designs, thus defeating the purpose. The whole point of experimentals was not so people could pump out cookie-cutter RV's by the thousands and have cheap, reliable, fast transpotation. That's merely a side (and quite welcome) benefit. The purpose is to allow private citizens to experiment with new designs and decide for themselves to accept the risks ascociated with that activity.
The fact that there are some experimentals that are so easily and reliably built is a testement to designers like Van and Heintz, however this is beside the point. Liability and responsibility for a manufacturer selling straight razors should not suddenly increase simply because Gillette makes a safety razor.
JimLogajan
Active Member
Mel said:
Thank you for the correction. I used "designer" in a couple spots where I should have written "builder".
So I saw the thread about the 600+HP RV-10, and now it makes perfect sense why Van wants you to sign a release from liability. Someone's going to register that as an RV-10 and then Van will have to defend himself in court when the airframe falls apart at 300mph.
PJ
RV-10 #40032
PJ
RV-10 #40032
cbo111
Active Member
I recently purchased an RV-7A and sent my info to Vans (like they recommend). They in turn sent me a Waiver and Release of Liability Agreement to sign that effectively waives my rights to ever litigate against them. I don't see ever needing to sue them, but why should I sign this agreement? I can't see any benefit to me. Anyone out there have insights that I am missing??
cbo
cbo
