Can an airplanes parts manufacturer be sued if the plane goes down because their parts failed? - airplane parts manufacturer
I must not only that the part was poorly detected, but also that those responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft were done properly. It would therefore be very difficult to prove in most cases. People can sue for anything else today, what happened to falling prices and go with him? Today, about his case, "EUR 120,000, please." really touching, so that when it was found that a defective part was responsible for an accident, then I might be prosecuted
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Airplane Parts Manufacturer Can An Airplanes Parts Manufacturer Be Sued If The Plane Goes Down Because Their Parts Failed?
9 comments:
The requirements include not only the manufacturer of the part, but the aircraft manufacturer, has installed the piece, any mechanic who has played the role, and each repair station that worked there.
As mentioned above, the "Sue Happy" ambulance chasing lawyers have a boom in general aviation in the United States killed for such claims shotgun greedy.
I was in a study, which has a factory in 'replace dry' vacuum pump, involved a Cessna 172 with a new, which is not, after a major repair problem in IMC Cessna 172 in flight (in a recurring 70 years late) , leading to a forced landing at an airport. The aircraft was damaged when the pilot made an emergency landing.
The pilot of the Cessna that the defendant, the manufacturer of the pump, I was working the FBO and the engineer who then removed and reinstalled the piece. We had to spend too much money on defense and to testify in court, even if the damage caused by the pilot to make a hard landing. The jury decided against the driver because Caused injuries, but all have thousands of dollars that did not.
All the "loser pays" tort or important reform would solve this problem.
The requirements include not only the manufacturer of the part, but the aircraft manufacturer, has installed the piece, any mechanic who has played the role, and each repair station that worked there.
As mentioned above, the "Sue Happy" ambulance chasing lawyers have a boom in general aviation in the United States killed for such claims shotgun greedy.
I was in a study, which has a factory in 'replace dry' vacuum pump, involved a Cessna 172 with a new, which is not, after a major repair problem in IMC Cessna 172 in flight (in a recurring 70 years late) , leading to a forced landing at an airport. The aircraft was damaged when the pilot made an emergency landing.
The pilot of the Cessna that the defendant, the manufacturer of the pump, I was working the FBO and the engineer who then removed and reinstalled the piece. We had to spend too much money on defense and to testify in court, even if the damage caused by the pilot to make a hard landing. The jury decided against the driver because Caused injuries, but all have thousands of dollars that did not.
All the "loser pays" tort or important reform would solve this problem.
The requirements include not only the manufacturer of the part, but the aircraft manufacturer, has installed the piece, any mechanic who has played the role, and each repair station that worked there.
As mentioned above, the "Sue Happy" ambulance chasing lawyers have a boom in general aviation in the United States killed for such claims shotgun greedy.
I was in a study, which has a factory in 'replace dry' vacuum pump, involved a Cessna 172 with a new, which is not, after a major repair problem in IMC Cessna 172 in flight (in a recurring 70 years late) , leading to a forced landing at an airport. The aircraft was damaged when the pilot made an emergency landing.
The pilot of the Cessna that the defendant, the manufacturer of the pump, I was working the FBO and the engineer who then removed and reinstalled the piece. We had to spend too much money on defense and to testify in court, even if the damage caused by the pilot to make a hard landing. The jury decided against the driver because Caused injuries, but all have thousands of dollars that did not.
All the "loser pays" tort or important reform would solve this problem.
There were limits to this responsibility, but the limits are mainly due to the age of the aircraft on - not even on, companies like Cessna be sued because someone could destroy an aircraft of 35 years and still bears the manufacturer to court.
It is still very common that if someone was injured, called at a level close to the team, which is stated at the level at the trial. The Lawers is a consensus in most cases because it is cheaper to pay for the insurance company for X amount of dollars to spend money from the defense before the courts.
Perhaps, but the game is difficult to prove. the company must also own or moral, I mean, if the component of demand that a review of all 500 hours of use and only bank and airline back in service, then there is a legal vacuum mai. There are also metal fatigue from prolonged use, so really the party, which may be the cause of the error is very difficult.
Sometimes it includes a mechanical part to another electrical part, we say that the solenoid valve that is installed through what is now the responsibility also extends to the solenoid valve manufacturer in the defective component, were accepted. Do you understand?
Yes, it is the main reason why planes are no longer affordable in the United States are manufactured, are companies like Cessna and Piper, thrived and produced a quality product for years, but lawsuits from survivors of drivers who have made the country, led to an explosion in insurance premiums similar to the same phenomenon in the medical industry. The plant builds million cost of aircraft and other domestic assembly plants for beginners and professionals built around the topic of product liability.
Yes, any person for anything nowadays can be sued. However, filing a complaint and winning are two different things, and the result of an application today depends very little on fact and especially emotional manipulation of the jury by lawyers.
In Airfrance ..
Airbus has advised ordered a replacement a few months ago ..
Therefore, you should fauult yours, but the French air and not a substitute for the part
Yes, if you have violated or break a bone. Wat Morgan said there are also limitations.
Post a Comment