Stand up in Court?

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:37:47 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:


"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
news
Won't work. It is not the buyer you need to worry about but the buyers
survivors. One can sign away their own rights but not the rights for
another and nothing you can do will protect you 100% from the buyers
survivors. What some home builders do if they are the builder of record
is part the plane and make sure the parts go to different buyers and that
none of them include the airworthyness certificate or registration.
So if you build a homebuilt you cant sell it. There should be some changes
made in these laws.


You can sell it but if you are the builder of record you carry the same
liability as Cessna, Piper, Grumman, etc.

The General Aviation Revitalization Act limits liability to an
aircraft manufacturer to 18 years after production.

I wonder if this applies to homebuilts too.

General question here. I am not at all familiar with the regs regarding
homebuilts or experimental aircraft. Do they have to have an annual
inspection to remain airworthy?
If so, I am thinking let the thing go out of annual before you sell it. Make
the buyer responsible for arranging whatever is needed to get everything
current. Hopefully it would shift enough responsibilty to the new owner and
his A&P if some failure were to get someone hurt or killed to keep you out
of it.

"Michael Ware" wrote in message
m...
General question here. I am not at all familiar with the regs regarding
homebuilts or experimental aircraft. Do they have to have an annual
inspection to remain airworthy?
If so, I am thinking let the thing go out of annual before you sell it.
Make
the buyer responsible for arranging whatever is needed to get everything
current. Hopefully it would shift enough responsibilty to the new owner
and
his A&P if some failure were to get someone hurt or killed to keep you out
of it.

Homebuilts require an annual inspection. If you built it you are still the
builder of record and if you have assets worth going after you will probably
join the list on the lawsuit. Quite often is is not who is at fault but who
has significant assets. Lawyers don't care who is at fault only who has
money.

This is true. A company I know was sued after a claim was made that one of
their parts failed, causing the deaths of two small children. Tests showed
that the part had been improperly installed (which could have caused a
failure), but did not fail.

The insurance company settled for over $4 million.

The worst part is that now the product liability premiums for this product
line now cost more that the profit made on the line, however dropping the
line is impractical, as they will still need to maintain the liability
insurance for the products already sold.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:6mMMf.17004
Lawyers don't care who is at fault only who has money.