Causes of Aviation Accidents

Aviation accident law extends to both major commercial air carriers and non-commercial aircraft, including small airplanes, charter flights, large business jets, pleasure crafts, hang gliders, and helicopters. It is the duty of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other government agencies to investigate and determine the cause of aviation accidents, whether they involve major air carriers or non-commercial aircraft. However, the opinions of the NTSB as to causation are not admissible in a court of law, and it is up to the parties to prove their own cases. The most common causes of these accidents include:

• Pilot error
• Manufacturing defects
• Equipment failure
• Structural or design problems
• Violation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations
• Negligence of Flight Service Station employees
• Negligence of Federal Air Traffic Controllers
• Negligence in a third party’s selection of a carrier
• Failure to maintain or repair the aircraft or its components
• Failure to fuel the aircraft

Liability in Aviation Accidents

Liability is always a more complex matter than causation, requiring more detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the accident. To determine liability, an attorney must evaluate any and all parties that could have contributed to the disaster, from manufacturers of equipment and parts to the operator and owner of the aircraft. The purpose of these investigations is to identify possible acts of negligence, deliberately wrongful acts, and instances in which aviation professionals failed to act in a timely manner or failed to take appropriate actions altogether. In some cases, negligence can be traced to a single party; more often, however, multiple parties form a chain of negligence and therefore may share liability.

“Strict Product Liability” – Liability of the Manufacturer

Most aviation accidents involve pilot error to some degree; however, problems with the aircraft, its equipment, or its component parts often contribute to the accident and the damages that result. In such cases, the manufacturer may be held at least partially responsible for any injuries or deaths that result from an aviation accident.

According to the doctrine of strict liability, the presence of the defect is evidence enough to prove a case, and one need not show any specific act of negligence. Although laws vary from state to state, what must generally be proven in a product liability case is that the victim’s injury did indeed result from a defect in the product, and that this defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous when used for its intended purpose.

To minimize potential risks, aircraft manufacturers, as well as manufacturers of parts and equipment used in aviation, are expected to adhere to rigorous production standards. If a defect occurs during the design or manufacturing stage of production, or if there is a failure to adequately warn of foreseeable dangers involved in the intended use of a product, the manufacturer may be held legally liable for any injuries or deaths that ensue as a result.

Product liability laws differ from state to state. In some states, a manufacturer may be held liable for a defective product simply because the product was determined to be “unreasonably dangerous” for its intended use by the average consumer. Most states, however, use a “risk-benefit” analysis to determine whether a manufacturer can be held strictly liable. This analysis weighs the risks associated with a given product against the benefits of its design. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the jury to decide whether there was a safer, mechanically feasible alternative to the existing design that could have been used, depending on the “state-of-the-art” at the time of manufacture.

To establish strict liability, it must be shown that the product:

• was defective at the time that it left the control of the manufacturer
• was used for its intended purpose or in a reasonably foreseeable manner
• contributed to the injury or death that resulted from the aviation accident

Three Types of Product Defects

A design defect occurs when a product is found to have been fundamentally and dangerously flawed from the point of conception. In such cases, it follows that all of the products manufactured according to the specifications of the design will be possessed of the same defect. These are the types of defects that are subject to the “risk-benefit” analysis employed by most states.

A manufacturing defect results from the failure to follow design specifications during fabrication of a product. Generally, manufacturing defects are easier to identify than design defects, as the defect will not be present in the otherwise identical products that are performing to standard. Such defects often occur as a consequence of faulty assembly, the use of substandard materials, or the failure of the manufacturer to properly check the quality of the finished product.

Finally, a manufacturer may be held liable for damages if it fails to provide clear and proper warnings of foreseeable hazards associated with the intended use of a product. In aviation, it is particularly important for pilots, maintenance crews, and other people involved with the operation of aircraft to have comprehensible instructions as to the proper use and limitations of instruments and equipment. If these instructions are vague or incomplete, or if the known risks associated with a product are not fully disclosed, the manufacturer can be held liable for any damages that result. Likewise, a manufacturer can be found liable if it does not take reasonable steps to issue warnings of defects discovered after the sale of a product.

It is important to note that, in certain cases, there are limits to manufacturer liability. In 1994, Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which in essence states that manufacturers of non-airline aircraft are protected from product liability lawsuits once an aircraft and its original parts have been in service for 18 years.

Liability – Owner or Operator

The owners and operators of aircraft are held to strict standards of care and accountability. When an aviation disaster results from the failure to meet these standards, owners and operators can be held liable for any damages that result. Indeed, under the theory of “vicarious liability,” the owner may be held responsible for the actions of the operator of the aircraft even in cases in which the owner was not directly involved with the accident.

Common Carriers

The standards to which “common carriers” – including commercial airlines and other carriers that make their services readily available to the public for a fee – are held are different and often more stringent than those to which private carriers are held. A thorough, intimate understanding of these differences is fundamental to accurately assessing liability.

“Comparative Liability” – Shared Liability Between Manufacturer and Owner/Operator

In many cases, liability is shared among multiple parties. Most jurisdictions handle this matter by allowing juries to compare the contributions of those parties responsible for an aviation disaster to determine the extent to which the individual parties are liable for damages. For instance, it may be decided that a product defect was 60 percent responsible for an accident, but that the failure of a pilot to respond appropriately accounted for the remaining 40 percent. In jurisdictions that allow for findings based on comparative fault, liability would therefore be divided 60/40 between the two parties.

Liability of the United States

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for controlling air traffic in the United States through its Air Traffic Control (ATC) system. In cases of mid-air collisions, controlled flight into terrain, and some weather related accidents it must be determined whether ATC personnel performed their duties competently. If it is proven that negligence on the part of ATC personnel caused or contributed to the accident, the United States government may be held liable for any damages that result.

Criminal Liability in Aviation Accidents

Along with civil claims brought against those responsible for causing aviation accidents, federal and state governments may also choose to pursue criminal sanctions. In most cases, these sanctions are imposed on aviators whose reckless conduct resulted in serious injury, death, or damage to property.

While a defendant cannot be incarcerated as a result of a civil claim, incarceration is often the goal of a criminal action. According to federal aviation law, the government has the right to file criminal charges against any party responsible for an aviation accident. In the event of a conviction, the guilty party may face punitive damages and even a prison sentence.

Criminal sanctions may be brought against any party that breaks aviation law, including commercial airlines and individual owners and operators of aircraft. For instance, a government may file criminal charges against a pilot who uses drugs or alcohol prior to a flight.

Criminal Charges in Aviation Crimes

There are three basic levels at which those responsible for aviation accidents may be faced with criminal charges:

• Criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter: A risk to others’ lives with foreseeable consequences was created by the defendant, who did nothing to alter the behavior that led to the risk.
• Manslaughter: The defendant continued a dangerous behavior knowing that it could result in the death of others.
• Third degree murder: The defendant caused a death while in the commission of another felony act.