Pax signing contracts to fly/Insurance - the Law

[DubTrub]

It might beg the question: "What is adequate passenger cover?". I should imagine that this is the old piece of string situation, for will my £1M passenger insurance policy (or third party for that matter) cover the event of my passenger, a succesful and high-earning businessman, being disabled and unable to work (and provide for his family to the same extent) again?

This is of course true in a lot of situations in today's increasingly litigious society, aviation-related or not, but what can the average pilot-at-the-airfield do finacially to protect himself adequately against losing house and home if a case arose? We are all error-prone. When does human error become negligence? I suppose in the opinion of a jury.

I do think that to fly without any insurance protection at all for your passenger(s) and third parties is a bit short-sighted, but I am not suggesting that anyone is so doing.

Just rhetorical questions, really, no need to answer.

DT


FL: words similar to your "doing something which falls below the standard to be expected of a competent and prudent pilot" have appeared on PPRuNe in the recent past (although not, I recall, from your keyboard). Some excellent advice and penmanship from both sources.

[weegsltl]

Hello,

Thank you for all your replies so far, its certinaly opened up much further than I expected.

I will be the first to admit I don't understand all the legalities of insurance and been only 19 I'm not too hot on life insurance either.

Therefore could someone outline the best course of action for me to take to cover myself and my pax.

Thanks for all your help so far....

[wbryce]

what about a sticker on the aircraft

"Passengers fly at own risk"

[Gertrude the Wombat]

"Passengers fly at own risk"

Once upon a time a client had a slightly leaking building, resulting in water under the false floor in the computer room, which resulted in some floor tiles being taken up, which resulted in some holes in the floor.

The client put up some "enter computer room at own risk" notices.

So, unable to work, I went and sat in the cafe at the client's expense for some hours until a senior enough person could be found to take the notices down. I doubt the notices had any legal validity, but I wasn't interested in taking the risk.

By all means stick "passengers' own risk" notices in your aircraft, but not only are they likely to be legally meaningless but also you might find you don't have any passengers.

[gingernut]

Sorry, worthless to rely on exclusion clauses if pursuing a claim for personal injury.

Even if you could rely upon them, they have to be communicated to the passenger before he agrees to fly with you. Here's the case which set a precedent (Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking)

Check it out if you are as sad as me.

[lady in red]

It seems connected to this thread and therefore worth pointing out that if the European regulation on Minimum Third Party Liability Levels is passed, then it will be the law to insure your passengers and for an aircraft such as a C172, the amount of cover required would be £3,000,000 TP liability cover and a further £85,000 per passenger amounting to £3,255,000. The costs of obtaining this insurance are likely to cause all premiums to rocket and therefore the cost of hiring aircraft to increase dramatically.

The new regulation will make insurance compulsory at these levels and failure to obtain it would be a breach of EC and UK law plus the CAA would be likely to take some kind of action for non-compliance. It looks like it will come into force at the beginning of 2005.

[keendog]

If the object is to protect your assets in the event of death or injury to passengers or third parties in an accident then a million is woefully inadequate.

[Max AirFactor]

As a low hours ppl I don't own/share an aircraft but initially I'm hiring from a rental company and a club and may possibly borrow private cofa or permit a/c. What is the responsible thing to do re cover?

If I need my own Third party policy, is this cover provided as an aviation specific policy or a general TP liability policy.

If my current life policy excludes death/loss by private avaition then can I add this cover to the above TP policy?


And where do you go for yours.

Cheers,

MAF

[G-Foxtrot Oscar 69]

I got very worried about all this Life Insurance stuff. Gave my IFA a call.

You are almost undoubtedly excluded from flying on a life insurance policy unless it is specified on the policy.

If you have Critical Illness and Life in one it will probably be the same.

He also pointed out you may be in breach of a term of your mortgage.

Got a quote to get my policy up rated.

It is a dangerous pass time! Not like driving to the airfield?

[QDMQDMQDM]

I have a two-seater aircraft and many of my friends are doctors with young families in their thirties and hence so are many of my passengers. For this group, I consider that my £3m third party insurance should pretty much be adequate. I wouldn't go any lower than that.

Here's a question though - to what extent can you limit liability by operating the aircraft through a limited company?

QDM

[Mike Cross]

There's a problem with the title of this thread.

For a contract to be enforceable there has to be an offer, an acceptance, valuable consideration, and in intention by the parties to contract. In most cases there will therefore be no enforceable contract since one or more of these requirements will be absent.

It is also not possible to enforce a contract where the purpose of the contract is illegal.

In the absence of a contract there are plenty of other legal means of redress available, some of which it might be possible to negate by means of an agreement by the parties prior to the flight. However there are some things that cannot be negated by such an agreement, liability for damage or injury caused by your negligence being one.

I do not profess to be an expert on this, no doubt FL will correct me if I have got anything wrong.

Mike

[WestWind1950]

I'm not sure of the proper "English" expressions (been living in Germany too long), but this is what I've been told:
According to the Chicago convention, liability is restricted to a certain amount, unless the pilot does something negligent on purpose, like flying into clouds or doing aerobatics without the rating for it. In these cases the liabilty can be indefinite.
It is also recommended to have passengers sign a sort of "ticket", like what you get with an airline, where all this is mentioned. This "ticket" should be left on the ground as proof that the passenger "willingly" took the flight and wasn't forced to. I know, it sounds corny, but there have been cases I'm told where passengers have actually claimed they had not really wanted to go! I guess the ticket is really sensible to protect the pilot from any false claims. At one time I made myself some "personal" tickets just for such purposes, but never used them

Insurance is a touchy subject and comes up at nearly all instructor refresher courses... for example: who is responsible on the hour-training flight in case something happens? The pilot under training or the instructor? I hate the thought of this question being properly answered AFTER an accident has occured!

Westy

[Flying Lawyer]

Mike Cross
Apologies for the delay in replying. I've only just seen your post.

I don't see any problem with the title. It's a brief summary of the originator's question and what appears in the thread.
You're right about the elements of a contract but the law relating to those elements is a little more complicated, and academic in the circumstances being discussed.

I'm afraid I don't follow your point about the purpose of the contract being illegal. There's nothing illegal about cost-sharing provided it's done in accordance with the regs.
Nor is there anything illegal about attempting to exclude liability for death/personal injury caused by negligence. It's frequently tried - it simply isn't effective, unless the injured party doesn't know the law and/or doesn't take legal advice. Rather like the old 'Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted' notices. Prosecuted for what?

I think it's far better to keep the point simple:

If you take people flying, you are liable if death or injury is caused to them by your negligence. You cannot evade or exclude that liability by requiring them to sign an agreement.

================

Westy

Who is responsible on the hour-training flight in case something happens? The pilot under training or the instructor?

The short answer is: the one who's negligent.
Which one was negligent depends upon the circumstances. Determining that issue is often difficult.

If a student-pilot does something which (in law, even if not in ordinary language) is 'negligent', then he may be found liable for the death, injury or damage caused - including to the instructor.

In such circumstances, disputes often arise over whether the student's negligent act could/should have been salvaged by a competent instructor but, if (for example) a student suddenly does something so quickly that even a competent FI doesn't have time to counter, the student may be liable.

On the other hand, if an accident is caused by an instructor allowing a student to attempt a manoeuvre which is way beyond his ability and experience, the FI may be found partly or totally liable - including to his student. eg Allowing someone to 'have a go' at a landing when he hasn't been taught to how to land.

It probably seems very odd that a student pilot's actions are judged by the standards of a competent and prudent pilot even though, by defintion, he's clearly not or he wouldn't be a student pilot. However, there are public policy reasons for the law and the same applies to learner drivers.

[IO540]

Flying Lawyer

If you take people flying, you are liable if death or injury is caused to them by your negligence

Is there a simple answer as to who is liable for damage/injury to passengers or people/property on the ground? I have understood this to be the pilot, the operator, the owner, all jointly and severally.

Is the pilot liable only if he was negligent, whereas the others are liable regardless (strict liability)?

[FNG]

Under section 76(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the aircraft owner is subject to strict liability (ie: liability without proof of fault) for damage to persons on property on land or water caused by an aircraft flying, landing or taking off, or by something or someone falling from it.

The provision is as follows:

"...where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then unless the loss or damage was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom it was suffered, damages in respect of the loss or damage shall be recoverable without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as if the loss or damage had been caused by the wilful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the aircraft. "

Otherwise, liability, including liability to passengers, depends upon negligence.

Note that, in a situation where the victim of damage on the ground may have a statutory no-fault claim against the aircraft owner, the owner may have recourse against the pilot if the damage was in fact due to the pilot's negligence.