MHawker

My Feedback: (16)

Hi all,

Just wondering what are everyone's thoughts on manufacturers' liability. Reading through threads, you inevitably come across someone asking a manufacturer to replace their plane due to some failure or another. For instance, if a servo fails and causes your plane to crash (assuming you can prove the servo caused the failure), is the manufacturer liable for your plane? Or if a wing separates and the crash ruins your engine, is the manufacturer liable for your engine and plane, etc?

I say they are only liable to replace the faulty part or refund the then current price. What about you?

JimTrainor

I expect the following, taken, from Futaba's web site, is typical:

"under no circumstances will the buyer be entitled to consequential or incidental damages"

http://www.futabarc.com/warranty.html

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

A very interesting question. Although in the majority of crashes, the modeler/pilot can be found at fault, there certainly exists some few cases in which the manufacturer produced a defective part which causes a crash. Furthermore, the manufacturer certainly knows his product is a critical aircraft component. He should have an obligation to provide parts suitable for their intended use.

I suspect if modelers win this argument, the price of R/C products will skyrocket.

Keep in mind also that no manufacturer can limit his liability by simply stating he is not responsible.

To

Cactus.

My Feedback: (1)

a design error that can effect all the planes in the range maybe.. a fluke snaped wing, nah. we have very little comeback in this hobby, any we do have is rare and on the compnays own good morals and customer service

ilikeplanes

I can see it now: Model aircraft and model aircraft flight critical component log books. To be filled out by an approved repair station and RC-A&P mechanic. COOL!

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

ABSOF----N'LUTELY NOT!!

if the manufacturer was responsible for the plane then why stop there? let's make him pay for the smashed car window, other planes destroyed in the pits, people losing their jobs because of the trauma................now that $15 servo would cost us $200!

think about it!


dave

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

In response to Zagnut, if the manufacturer was found to be "negligent" in their practices, either in design, construction, production, or material choices, they most certainly can and would be found liable. That little product liability disclaimer they include with their products isn't worth toilet tissue if someone ever gets injured or large actual damage claim come into play.

There has been a tremendous amount of legal precedence that covers this issue, and no unsigned, predetermined waiver will relieve the manufacturer from their legal respinsibility.

So far, no cases or settlement amounts have been touted about, but I would be surprised if they haven't happend.

Mike in DC

I'm thinking about it! Whether or not the company pays or not, you and I are going to pay. Somebody has to fix that smashed car window, somebody has to pay for those airplanes, and somebody is going to buy food for the families where people lost their jobs. Who would you rather that be? The guy that is making all the money selling defective servos, or us consumers and taxpayers? Currently you're paying some part of your AMA dues to pay for accidents caused by defective servos, so we know the total cost is less than $50 a year per AMA member. So, I would suspect that pushing some of that liability onto the servo maker might raise the price a couple of bucks, no more. But the bottom line is we're going to pay. Keeping servo prices low doesn't really help anybody, if you're paying more somewhere else.

greenboot

My Feedback: (1)

I'm going to make an unstantiated claim that lots of liability claims have already been settled but we never hear about them. When a company looses a lawsuit, they keep it covered up to prevent copy cats from sueing.

Tom

Antique

My Feedback: (4)

Signed papers mean nothing in today's legal system..A lawyer that can sue McDonald's for someone spilling coffee and getting burned can sue YOU for anything..

Mike in DC

Oh no, not the McDonald's coffee nonsense again.! Get [link=http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm]the facts[/link].

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

Huge can of worms. I find it hard to put liability on a manufacturer for a model that someone builds, takes up and tries to fly with or without help. He is putting huge loads on the wings when he pulls up. The ones that seem to cry that they were robbed are usually the ones that didn't get help and jerked the wings off. Some companies do help them more than they should. There are the occasional ones that are caused by faulty equipt. The company in that case should replace the parts that are defective (and everything else in a perfect world). I still feel that if a Lawyer brings a lawsuit that attatches millions in punitive damages and he looses the case, he should also loose his licence to practice law. That would be really cool and end the BS lawsuits you see in this country.

ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

This falls in line with the anti-firearms claque that wants to make gun makers liable when some idiot uses one to kill someone or an irresponsible parent does not properly lock the drawer in which a pistol is kept. At the risk of sounding the same as the National Rifle Assn. it is the user of the product who should be responsible for its misuse. In some respect it is the same with RC aircraft. Truly some parts may fail because of improper design but 99+% of the time it is the fault of the pilot. There are still those among us who will fly over the pits, cars or houses but unfortunately reasoning with these types is next to impossible. Next we have the blubberbutts wanting to sue fast food manufacturers because they sell the stuff to them. If a servo fails or a wing falls off the chances are it is not the manufacturer but the builder. Proving otherwise would be next to impossible. Manufacuturers liability was created by Ralph Nader when he took on GM's Corvair and now the price of everything goes up to pay for recalls
some of which are certainly justified. We expect makers of model products to provide products that will perform as intended. If they don't we won't have to worry about their continuance in business.