Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1911344
That case and its precedent are about strict liability arising in a certain set of circumstances (the case was escape of water) and the liability of those who 'bring, keep or collect' things onto their own land which are 'liable to do mischief if they escape'.

It has no relevance to flying aeroplanes. An owner/operator/pilot does not have strict liability towards their passengers.

Edit: Perhaps this erroneous belief of widespread strict liability, the idea that compensation will always be due in case of mishap, contributes to the management culture in aviation in this county - e.g. "no you can't land out of hours or without ATS coz liability"
By Ibra
#1911434
Sooty25 wrote:Ibra wrote:
> Assuming, the pilot owns assets that are more than his max insured
> liability value…why someone with 1billion fortune would fly with 200k claim
> cover?
>
> I doubt lawyers would go after pilots without assets?

House?, Pension? classic car maybe? You don't need to be a billionaire to have enough to be a target, they won't be coming for you instead of the insurers, they'd be coming at you for the shortfall.

£2M claim, £1M insurance, £1M shortfall = your house and pension!


That shortfall has nothing to do with aircraft insurance?

If you cut someone’s arm you have to pay for it (with your estate in front of a judge), the insurance may pay some of that but yes the shortfall the money has to come from somewhere else, if you don’t have assets they can’t get a nickel and you may end up in prison though…

PS: you can’t get someone’s house if they live on it and you can’t get their pension if they don’t own it…
By grow45
#1911457
Don't forget that there is strict liability (ie an indemnity without need to prove fault) on the owner of an aircraft (or operator if it is leased out for more than 14 days) under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in the case of material loss or damage caused to any person or property on land or water by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing.
By profchrisreed
#1911474
grow45 wrote:Don't forget that there is strict liability (ie an indemnity without need to prove fault) on the owner of an aircraft (or operator if it is leased out for more than 14 days) under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in the case of material loss or damage caused to any person or property on land or water by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing.


This provision (s 76(2)) is poorly drafted, but I'm reasonably the certain that a court would interpret it to cover only injury or damage to some person or property outside the aircraft. The title of s 76 is 'Liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage'.

Liability to a passenger (or some person or property in the air, thus not 'on land or water') would then be a matter of a negligence claim.

For those who don't understand quite how liability insurance works:

1. It covers the liability of the insured, up to the specified limit.

2. Where the insurance company is not sure that the insured is in fact liable (in this case, not negligent), it won't pay unless a successful claim is made against the insured. The policy always says that the insurer will run the defence and cover the costs, but the claim is always against the insured. The claimant has no direct claim against the insurer (outside motor accident cases, which have their own rules on this).

3. If the claimant wins, the court decides the damages and the insurer pays as much of them as the policy provides, leaving the insured to pay the rest. This is why the limit matters.

[Sidenote: If it's any help, it's usually much cheaper to kill someone outright by negligence than it is to injure them severely with long-term consequences. Mid-airs are rare, so landing (or arriving) is the danger period. An assessment of one's technique here might help decide the financial risk, based on how likely the victim is to survive :) }
Sooty25 liked this
By grow45
#1911478
profchrisreed wrote:
grow45 wrote:Don't forget that there is strict liability (ie an indemnity without need to prove fault) on the owner of an aircraft (or operator if it is leased out for more than 14 days) under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in the case of material loss or damage caused to any person or property on land or water by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing.


This provision (s 76(2)) is poorly drafted, but I'm reasonably the certain that a court would interpret it to cover only injury or damage to some person or property outside the aircraft. The title of s 76 is 'Liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage'. }


Indeed. It is my understanding is that it dates from the early days of aviation as a trade off for what is now section 76(1) that allows overflight without claims for trespass or nuisance.

I was simply highlighting it as something else to be aware of when thinking about insurance.