scenario

Product liability is the tort liability for damage and personal injury caused by defective products. Manufacturers and designers of products have the duty to ensure that their products are safe for their intended use and if the products can cause hazards, then the manufacturers also have the duty to inform users of this possible hazard. In Scenario 2, the person who is potentially legally liable for the pilot’s injuries is the aircraft manufacturer. The gear collapse of the aircraft was caused by a metallurgical flaw in the strut which was manufactured by a subcontractor and delivered to the aircraft’s manufacturer. Since the aircraft manufacturer has the duty to ensure that the product is safe for use, he is potentially liable for the pilot’s injuries. Even though the subcontractor delivered the faulty part to the manufacturer, he is not liable for the pilot’s injuries. The manufacturer is liable because he failed to take reasonable steps within his coordinating authority to prevent the strut with the metallurgical flaw from being used to manufacture the aircraft. Since the manufacturer retained general control over the manufacturing of the aircraft, he is legally liable for the pilot’s injuries (Weber, 2008).

If the pilot had bought the airplane a long time before the accident, it would have made a difference in the liability claim as the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 prevents lawsuit against manufactures of small aircrafts if the product has been in service for 18 years or more. If the pilot had brought the airplane 18 years or more before the accident, then the manufacturer would not be liable for the damages and personal injuries caused by the plane. This is because the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 would protect the manufacturer from the legal liability (Kovarik, 2008).

Leave a Reply