Bruce Tuncks Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 There was a deceased-estate homebuilt in the US where the inheritors were advised to burn the plane in order to avoid liability. This is insane, and it could be rectified if the buyer was allowed to buy at his own risk. Unless there was fraud involved ( like forging a bogus inspection report ) surely this is the reasonable thing to permit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 What you describe appears to be what we currently have. It is a sorry world.Turbo’s Tasmanian quad bike girl for instance.....behaves like a git, gets hurt, parent sue farmer for millions, and WINS...how is that taking responsibility for your actions? Because the FARMER was responsible for his actions; go and read the case more carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 There was a deceased-estate homebuilt in the US where the inheritors were advised to burn the plane in order to avoid liability.This is insane, and it could be rectified if the buyer was allowed to buy at his own risk. Unless there was fraud involved ( like forging a bogus inspection report ) surely this is the reasonable thing to permit? That wasn't required by law; probably just the Executor's lazy response. Auctioneers at farm clearing sales give out the same advice "not to be used for farm purposes, scrap only"; it wouldn't protect them if they were negligent anyway. What would a reasonable buyer of that homebuilt do? Probably check its build documentation and approvals and its service documentation, and the history of the pilot, then do a strip down and rebuild if necessary, or buy it for parts - what's wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Because the FARMER was responsible for his actions; go and read the case more carefully. I've read it several times Turbo. I don't see how anyone could honestly believe that's a sensible outcome. It's like lawyers are from a different planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I've read it several times Turbo.I don't see how anyone could honestly believe that's a sensible outcome. It's like lawyers are from a different planet. We live on the same planet as the lawyers, and the lawyers argue their cases based on the law, which has been there since 1932. The farmer provides a tool for work on the farm - a quad bike. A quad bike has a high COG which can move sideways under cornering on the soft tyres; the soft tyres a prone to bouncing the vehicle and the vehicle has a very short wheelbase and high power to weight ratio, which can lead top it climbing backwards over its rear wheels. They have a history of getting upside down and killing drivers. Farmers in that region often employ backpackers, who in turn often come from urban Europe and are experiencing a farm for the first time. When the farmer gives the worker a task involving the Quad bike, he has a duty of care to prevent a reasonably forseeable risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Of course a reasonable buyer would check things out. But as has been argued here, what if the buyer is a babe in the woods? So to prevent a lawsuit, the plane was advised to be destroyed. Suppose you sold it with the stipulation "only to be used for parts" and the buyer ignored this. How can you be sure a court wouldn't find you at fault anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Of course a reasonable buyer would check things out. But as has been argued here, what if the buyer is a babe in the woods? So to prevent a lawsuit, the plane was advised to be destroyed.Suppose you sold it with the stipulation "only to be used for parts" and the buyer ignored this. How can you be sure a court wouldn't find you at fault anyway? Every sale of an RA aircraft other than a factory built fits into this category, and I haven't heard of wholesale destruction. If you want to strictly qualify it to the US example which started this story, where the builder has died, I still haven't heard of a rash of destructions. In the case of a unit suitable only for parts, what I've done in the past is cut the parts out and sold the remaining scrap metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 You keep missing the point Turbs, the plane would have been ok in fact, and the "only fit for parts" stuff would be to try and protect yourself from being sued by the buyer one day. An attempt to make the buyer carry the responsibility for deciding how and when to fly it. There is a precedent in Australia for being responsible for your own decisions... the tandem parachute passenger who had signed an agreement that the jump was at his own risk eventually lost on appeal. This appeal cost the GFA heaps but without that win it would have been impossible to sell glider rides anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 You keep missing the point Turbs, the plane would have been ok in fact, and the "only fit for parts" stuff would be to try and protect yourself from being sued by the buyer one day. An attempt to make the buyer carry the responsibility for deciding how and when to fly it. I don't think tagging an item only fit for parts protects you if it's in operating condition, but that's for the lawyers. Although this story comes from the US, and is vague an may even be BS, the point I was making in #232 was that in Australia this same situation would come up time and time again; a person builds an aircraft, then sells it, or dies and it is sold from his estate. Have they all been scrapped? Can you remember any more details. the location?, Date? I think I checked that out and found the instructor was not negligent. If you want to claim, you have to prove the person was not negligent; it's by no means an easy way to riches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 We live on the same planet as the lawyers, and the lawyers argue their cases based on the law, which has been there since 1932.The farmer provides a tool for work on the farm - a quad bike. A quad bike has a high COG which can move sideways under cornering on the soft tyres; the soft tyres a prone to bouncing the vehicle and the vehicle has a very short wheelbase and high power to weight ratio, which can lead top it climbing backwards over its rear wheels. They have a history of getting upside down and killing drivers. Farmers in that region often employ backpackers, who in turn often come from urban Europe and are experiencing a farm for the first time. When the farmer gives the worker a task involving the Quad bike, he has a duty of care to prevent a reasonably forseeable risk. It doesn't sound like you read it...way more to it than that....but, we've been here before. There is no way you can convince me that outcomes like that are acceptable and clearly you think they are fine, so lets move on and stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 It doesn't sound like you read it...way more to it than that....but, we've been here before. There is no way you can convince me that outcomes like that are acceptable and clearly you think they are fine, so lets move on and stay on topic. That doesn’t surprise me; the decision had nothing to do with me; it was made by people qualified to make it, who considered the actual evidence; and it set a safety precedent for Quad Bikes. The simple addition of a roll cage and seat belt follows by about 40 years what was done on other four wheel vehicles. Nothing unusual in any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Sorry no specifics but I well remember the explanation of why the GFA had to pay out big money ( some of it mine ) to be part of the court case. The parachute federation were up front, and the GFA and the hang-glider group paid up for sure, and very likely the Ultralight federation. What you say about there being no negligence on the part of parachute guy makes sense, I don't think that the GFA would have paid to appeal otherwise. Here's where I envy you a bit. You seem to believe that there is some sense in the legal business. I would like this to be true, but alas I think that many judges are stupid and have their own hidden mental health problems, so the likes of me would not get a fair go.For example, I bet there are judges out there who have a secret fear of flying. But, having said that, there are lots of countries worse than Australia. You wouldn't be able to do business unless there was some predictable rule of law huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 You wouldn't be able to do business unless there was some predictable rule of law huh Probably why business is suffering so much in this country. In the case about the quad bike, there was no helmet law, yet the judge decided the farmer was guilty of not making the idiot wear a helmet. That's not what I'd call a predictable rule of law. The simple addition of a roll cage and seat belt follows by about 40 years what was done on other four wheel vehicles. Nothing unusual in any of that. Unfortunately it's not unusual here. (I don't like quads) All they've done is take a quad and turn into a car, we already have cars, so no real advancement, just a step backwards, we're going the same way with rec flying, had ultralights we could maintain, soon we will have GA aircraft that we have to pay someone else to maintain. Another step backwards to what existed previously.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I’m no lawyer, and I’ve seen a few very odd decisions, but when you been through an Act a few hundred times and watched the lawyers addressing its clauses it all starts to fall into a pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Probably why business is suffering so much in this country. In the case about the quad bike, there was no helmet law, yet the judge decided the farmer was guilty of not making the idiot wear a helmet. That's not what I'd call a predictable rule If you are the driver of a car and you don’t ensure your passengers have their seat belts fastened you’ll be booked, so it should be predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 No argument there, it definitely falls into a pattern. but we're at odds about "odd decisions". If you are the driver of a car and you don’t ensure your passengers have their seat belts fastened you’ll be booked, so it should be predictable. HOW does that relate to to not forcing someone to wear a helmet when there was NO law requiring one to be worn, ???? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 HOW does that relate to to not forcing someone to wear a helmet when there was NO law requiring one to be worn, ???? In that case maybe it doesn’t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I was caught up in the "Helmet" law, (didn't like them" So didn't ride a motorbike for fifty years. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I was caught up in the "Helmet" law, (didn't like them" So didn't ride a motorbike for fifty years.spacesailor If the National figure is 200/ year, that will put you ahead of 10,000 ex Australians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 OOOPs Still no helmet. spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 That looks like an old BP sticker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 If the National figure is 200/ year, that will put you ahead of 10,000 ex Australians. Why not just think of it as "thinning the herd" or "chlorinating the gene pool"? I happily wear my helmet, but I don't believe that people should be forced, but I also believe that they should bear the responsibility for the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Why not just think of it as "thinning the herd" or "chlorinating the gene pool"? I happily wear my helmet, but I don't believe that people should be forced, but I also believe that they should bear the responsibility for the outcome. Those pesky lawyers will just get you for manslaughter for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Those pesky lawyers will just get you for manslaughter for that. Manslaughter? for not wearing your helmet? This seems to be a bit of a circular argument..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Lots of mature people stopped riding bikes because of the helmet law. It raised their risk of heart attack and other non-exercise fatalities. So the helmet law killed more than it saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now