AME'S that have been sued

[SeptRepair]

I have been reading a few of the threads on liabilities and it came to me, are there actually any cases in CANADA of an AME being sued as an individual and lost because of a mistake they have made regardless if there is a loss of life? We all talk about how we are liable, yet in the 20 plus years I have been doing this, I have never heard of a case, all anecdotal. Anybody have any verifiable stories they can share?

[Troubleshot]

I too have often wondered this.... But seeing how Canada has had next to nil to regards to loss of life due to maintenance I doubt many will have heard of anyone. I am sure everyone knows someone in some degree who has contributed to an incident or accident but not in liable manslaughter sense.

TS

[CID]

The Aeronautics act only has provisions for charges and fines for actions contrary to the act or the regulations themselves. Since there are no provisions for loss of life or injury, no such charges or fines can result.

But....Civil court is a whole different story. Even AMEs working in their capacity within the context of the regulations are still subject to all the civil laws.

It's therefore difficult to answer the original question. An AME who, by his/her negligent criminal actions caused an airplane to crash causing damage to property and injury to persons on board might only end up with a small fine and suspension of privileges under the Aeronautics Act, but be prosecuted in a civil suit by the aircraft owner or persons acting on behalf of the dead or injured and end up in prison or paying restitution for losses. It's easy to see who's being charged under the Aeronautics act on a monthly basis but evidence of civil action is much more difficult to track down.

One case that was particularly well know involved Mark Tayfel. He was a pilot, not an AME but he was also the first pilot in Canada convicted of criminal negligence. I would think civil cases against the actions of AME are just as rare.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ ... crash.html

[Bede]

I can think of two cases.

Case 1: AME installed fuel selector 90 degrees off (Left was off, Both was left, right was both, Off was right) resulting in an engine failure on subsequent flight. No damage, but another AME had to fix the airplane and it was flown out of the field. Result: Settled out of court for the value of the annual ($~4000).

Case 2: US A&P sold aircraft with "fresh annual". Aircraft imported to Canada and extensive corrosion rendered the aircraft unairworthy and beyond repair. The aircraft was subsequently parted out and the entire fuselage, tail and wings were sold for scrap metal ($50). Result: settled out of court.

Here are some others:
http://canlii.ca/en/sk/skqb/doc/2009/20 ... qb452.html
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onca/doc/1999/19 ... i3050.html

The Aeronautics act only has provisions for charges and fines for actions contrary to the act or the regulations themselves. Since there are no provisions for loss of life or injury, no such charges or fines can result.

Unless the injury was a result of an act contrary to the AA.

An AME who, by his/her negligent criminal actions caused an airplane to crash causing damage to property and injury to persons on board might only end up with a small fine and suspension of privileges under the Aeronautics Act, but be prosecuted in a civil suit by the aircraft owner or persons acting on behalf of the dead or injured and end up in prison or paying restitution for losses.

If it's negligent criminal action, than a criminal charge will result. If it's not criminal negligence, but negligence nonetheless, then a person can still be held liable in a civil action. No civil case will result with a person in prison. However monetary damages can be awarded.

One case that was particularly well know involved Mark Tayfel. He was a pilot, not an AME but he was also the first pilot in Canada convicted of criminal negligence. I would think civil cases against the actions of AME are just as rare.

The difference between negligence (civil) and criminal negligence is mens rea (guilty mind). Let say you breach a standard of care and damages result, you will be held liable (civil). If you had a guilty mind (you knew what you were doing breached the standard of care), you can be held criminally liable. In Tayfel's case, the Crown was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tayfel knew that he was breaching a standard of care and as a result, Tayfel was convicted.

IMO, AME's should ensure that their employers carry liability insurance on their behalf. Often it's not the damages that will sink you but the lawyer costs carrying a case through trial.

[GA MX Trainer Dude]

Not only AMEs' and Pilots' get sued - Regulators can and have been as well.

http://www.lexcanada.com/lib-av-1012-02.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12 ... index.html



If you think criminal convictions in the aviation industry are a "RARE EVENT" then have a look at the DOT reports from the US.


http://www.oig.dot.gov/investigations


In addition there are all kinds of legal firms just looking for an easy mark to pin the blame and attach financial penalties to.

For example - http://www.airplanecrash-lawyer.com/Pra ... igence.asp


If you haven't read these articles; you probably should.

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/ ... 570-1.html

http://www.pchamberlain.com/2010/09/cri ... egligence/



Yes the legal system in Canada is different than the US - But what happens to a Canadian aircraft flying the Reno races that crashes into the crowd killing and injuring spectators? Cause of the crash is determined to be negligence on part of the Canadian AME and Pilot. Does the legal system in the US have the right to prosecute a Canadian?? If you think not, then you probably need to think about all the Canadians currently serving time in US jails for drug related convictions!!

As I stated in the F1 Reno Racer thread - "YA BETTER KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING INTO BEFORE YOU GO"!!!!


Happy reading

MX

[jetdoc]

Please note the single most important item that insurance pays for is your Defence!.

The cases of an AME being found liable for damages are pretty rare, defending against a legal action can be very costly.

Innocent or guilty = lawyer gets paid!!

Make sure you are covered.

[LousyFisherman]

Please note the single most important item that insurance pays for is your Defence!.

Uhhh, your insurance company WILL NOT pay for your defence against a negligence charge! Mainly because they do not want you to win. If you are found guilty of civil or criminal negligence they do not have to pay out,

LF

[Bede]

LousyFisherman,

That's not true. Liability and indemnity insurance carries a duty to defend. The majority of these type of claims are for negligence so if the underwriter did not have a duty to defend it really wouldn't be insurance would it?

[LousyFisherman]

LousyFisherman,
That's not true. Liability and indemnity insurance carries a duty to defend. The majority of these type of claims are for negligence so if the underwriter did not have a duty to defend it really wouldn't be insurance would it?

Ahh, live and learn. Not the first time I've been wrong In the IT business it is called error and omissions insurance and my lawyer was very specific that I would have to pay for my defense against a negligence accusation myself, and if I won the insurance company would reimburse me. I'll have to see if I can get the duty to defend clause added.

Thank you
LF

[CID]

Wow....Bede knows his shyte! I think we know who the legal authority on AvCanada is!

[SeptRepair]

I have to agree, Bede adds a lot to the conversation in regards to Legal issues that I respect.