poncharello420

Isn't that the question, though?If there is a manufacturing defect, shouldn't Cessna be liable for the losses of those impacted by the defect?Surely, when Cessna puts together an aircraft, a substantial issue with every component supplier is liability in the event of a failure. If a GE engine goes bad and causes a crash, Cessna will want an indemnity from GE because Cessna will be sued as soon as the plane stops smoking even though they didn't do anything wrong.

I read the OPas a yes/no question in instances where the airframe was the problem. If the air frame is the problem, the manufacturer of that air frame should absolutely bear the costs of the loss (of course, evidentiary issues would be tricky with respect to RC planes). Take the question further, say that a RC jet is flying within spec, the pilot has maintained it perfectly, the pilot makes no error but the airframe fails and that jet comes down on a 5 year old kid who was well out of the field of flight and not in any reasonable danger, confining him to a wheel chair for the rest of his life. Who should bear that risk of loss?Should it be the kid?Should it be the pilot, who did everything right?Or should it be the manufacturer who put a faulty product into the stream of commerce? There is a tortfeasor in the hypothetical. Can you figure out who it is?

Ultimately, a manufacturer has an obligation to price their products at a level that includes product liability insurance. Sure, they can attempt to disclaim warranties, but if a product fails (the burden of proving that with RCis difficult) the manufacturer who sold the faulty product is the one who is ultimately responsible. One can argue that will raise costs, but the outright refusal to assume liability in the first instance raises costs as well, it's just that the higher cost is borne by the unfortunate folks who get defective products - the aggregate cost is the same, it's merely reallocated to those who get defective products.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Lawyers and the litigais society we live in has all but (and for a few other reasons) killed manufacturing in the United States. Remember U may not be able to afford this hobby/sport if Lawyers and product liability rears it's Ugly Head in our hobby.
If U can't afford to crash get out of the HOBBY, Now Suck It Up and GO FLY.

iflyg450

I am sorry I may not have gotten my thoughts across clearly. Yes Cessna is liable for their workmanship. As a result YOU CAN ONLY buy parts approved for that plane and they can ONLY be installed by an approved mech. Every year you MUST have the plane inspected wither you flew it or not. These are the measures they take to make sure you are doing your part to make their plane safe. That is why aviation is so expensive. A wheel bearing for your car might cost you 8.00 at advanced auto the same part number used for a Cessna 150 might cost over a 100.00 just because its say approved on the box. That is the cost of making the manufacture liable. You cannot expect an RC model company to be liable when they have no control on how you transport it assemble it and with what parts or how you operate it. RC planes are just like experimental aviation you assemble the plane and it's all on you. You want the manufactures liable that's fine I will be more than happy to come to your house and charge you 5000.00 every year to inspect your jet because that what I charge for an annual inspection.

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

My first thought was the thread title should be changed to "when you crash...."

My thought is no... too many variables/connections/switches/how a person flies and not enough REAL experts to really determine cause of crash outside of a number of WAGs.... The thing about structural failure is given enough flights, eventually it WILL happen, so now you have to discuss what is an acceptable lifetime for a plane.... 1 year? 500 flights? 60 loops? 6 flights and a bad case of flutter? ( sorry dubd.. I read your whole thread...the financial part of that loss really stinks....you have my wallet's sympathy  )  Jet pilots are flying in a different financial range than the rest of the hobby. and if you can stomach that.. awesome.. but you have to also realize that stomaching that means losing 10-20grand when things go wrong. notice I said when, not if.

the hobby is building... flying ... and yes... crashing.  The latter happens when 1 of the first 2 isn't done correctly. poorly built ARF's are present in the hobby at ALL levels of $$$$$ from cheap foamies to giant scale jets. The great things about forums like these is they point out the crap so that people hopefully go and buy the good ones. its sucks..but thats the risk taken by flying something someone else made. in a perfect world it wouldn't be that way...but.. its not... the best thing that can be done is to promote the good ones, and keep a database of the planes that really aren't worth the $$. Take your lessons learned and push them forward so others have a chance of not repeating the mistakes.

poncharello420

Regardless of where something is manufactured, if it is offered for sale in the US,the manufacturer is subject to product liability risk in the US. Toyota still has American product liability risks for stuck accelerators even if a defective car is manufactured in Japan so I'm not really sure what your point above means.

poncharello420

I disagree. There are millions of products in the marketplace that are not subject to any sort of annual inspection where the manufacturer is still liable for defects in its product. But to be clear, as a matter of products liability law, I would be surprised if any jurisdiction in the US would ultimately hold that an RC manufacturer isn't liable for all damages caused by a proven defect in one of its parts (you can disclaim a warranty all you want, but product liability is a separate tort that is unrelated to the contractual warranty). The manufacturers' analysis(to the extent there is any)is probably that the cost of the planes and accessories that could be lost due to a manufacturing defect isso low relative to the cost of litigation (which would be expensive and yield an uncertain result due to the various defenses the manufacturer would raise (e.g., not maintained to spec, overpowered, pilot error, etc.)) that there is no credible threat of a lawsuit. That's why Cessna has product liability issues - full scale plane crashes often involve property damage and often times death, bringing the value of the suit up to a point where an attorney can reasonably think a recovery that makes the case worth his/her time. RC plane crashes do not result in enough damages to make pursuing them worthwhile, but if you start getting up in the hundreds of identical airframe failures, you might be in a spot where a hungry plaintiffs lawyer would take notice, assuming the manufacturer was well capitalized or insured (a big assumption). I don't fly jets, but if I did, I would absolutely have a a giant umbrella policy to cover the scenario where I got some defective part that caused a crash that led to third party harm.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Do U do "Owner Assisted" Annuals?

iflyg450

I do, but WI is a bit further than I would normally travel.

jessiej

In the past I have owned motorcycle that were built purely for competition use. They had no warranty and a decal was affixed to the machine stating that fact.

Would manufacturers of model aircraft be prudent to attach such a notice to their products?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Like to try Apache Junction in AZ in the middle of Janurary then????

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

Really? Another 4 pages of this stuff?Don't fly anything you can't afford to lose.

poncharello420

Sure. That could limit contractual warranty liability, but it would do nothing for products liability claims, which are based in tort law rather than contract law. If you bought a motorcycle that the manufacturer marketed as a racing bike built to go 150 miles per hour and they included a fork that would break at speeds of 100 miles per hour, you likely wouldn't have any warranty claim but you might still have a products liability claim for either a design defect or a manufacturing defect (which would likely require you to prove negligence somewhere in the design or manufacture process). Iassume RC manufacturers disclaim warranties to the fullest extent of the law, but I don't know that the disclaimer would cover the manufacturer's negligence. But as Isaid above, the losses in these instances are so small relative to the cost of getting a remedy that the manufacturers probably just assume that products liability risk is almost 0. Given the lack of a practicable remedy, the advice above of those who suggest self-insurance (don't fly something unless you can flush the value of the craft down the toilet) is probably really wise.

stevekott

Blah Blah ... Lawyer .. Lawsuit .. Contractural Liability ... Blame .. Negligence .. So much speculation about the way things SHOULD be and completely ignoring the reality of the way things are.

C'mon guys, don't you get enough of that BS at work?

This is a HOBBY we do this for FUN!! There's no crying in model jets!! Just suck it up and burn some Kero!

iflyg450

Sure I grew up in New England. What are we inspecting?

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

if plane flying is causing you or who ever started this stuff why dont you go to the cheap foams>>does turbines and fast jets give you that much of a thrill i hope this will change to something better its giving me a big head be cause iam the best

rgburrill

No you are not buying an RTF but you are buying an ARF - just like buying the ARF PTS Mustang. Unless you are going to submit that ARF to very expensive XRAY inspection you will not have proof that a failure is caused by manufacture or by your completion effort or by your piloting skills.

I did buy a cheap RTF foamie and it did crash on my first flight. And the fuse broke at the back of the wing saddle. But I did not go to the manufacture, nor the supplier, and cry about they should buy me an entire new plane. Maybe, just maybe, I did not check the balance correctly. Maybe I should have noticed that the cockpit fit a little too snug and stressed that end of the saddle.

You have asked that question multiple times in this thread. You have been given both yes and no answers multiple times. So once again, here is my answer - you decide how you spend your money, you take your chances on the outcome. You are responsible for your own life.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

time to move on to something else sorry to say this you cantplease everyone

Speedy-Gonzales

My Feedback: (202)

I dropped a bottle of beer on my foot once and the glass bottle cut my bare foot. I really didn't worry about my foot but suffered severe mental anguish over the loss of a full bottle of beer and I felt strongly that it was the beer manufacturer's fault for not designing the bottle so it would not slip from my hand so I sued for free beer for the rest of my life. My foot has healed and I still have to buy my own beer.

This world is not fair so now I am planning on claiming disability due to my foot injury so I can get financial assistance to pay for my beer!


Sound crazy? Well to some it does not. This story is untrue but it shows just how silly the world has become.

HELP!!!!.....I've fallen and spilled my beer and I can't get up!.......... Drinking problem?.......nah!........ Bad shoes!

Rubbish....pure rubbish!

Just remember that an "RC EXPERT" is anyone that has crashed more than 10 times.

kidcrashalot

NO. Unless the manufacturer states that they will. Pay for one that states that $$$$$$

Chris Nicastro

My Feedback: (3)

Just curious...

How many here posting have worked in the RC industry? In a hobby shop? Legitimately either on the product side or on the sales side.


Hypothetically - you go to Lowes and buy a fridge, take it home plug it in and it doesn't work. Is it unreasonable to expect it to work right the first time? Should I just suck it up and go buy a load of ice and a foam cooler and call it good?

So why is it unreasonable for me to expect any product to work as advertised including a jet model? Its a consumer product, its offered to anyone qualified or not, to buy and use.

The manufacturer advertises the model flies. If the model flies once I suppose they met their obligation. Is this a reasonable consumer expectation? No, obviously the consumer expects the model to work for a reasonable period of time. That is why if the manufacturer places a 1 year warranty on the model they will be set free of any obligation after the warranty period. They will have plenty of opportunities to fix production issues and in the end after a few production cycles the airframe will be figured out and reliable. The hopefully few parts they handed out due to warranty issues will taper off as production QC improves and the line will be more profitable over time.

In order to shut this conversation down substantially if not completely there would have to be a disclaimer by the manufacturer to release their liability at the point of purchase. By agreeing to buy this product you agree to take all responsibility. This will make you think for a second hopefully about what your about to do, is this brand reputable, reliable, etc.

The problem with that is the manufacturer then has a free pass to produce crap and charge anything and leave you holding the bag. There has to be some kind of check and balance there because its not ideal or fair to the consumer.

The whole purpose of consumer protection is to keep manufacturers from abusing, raping and pillaging consumers. What you guys who are saying No there shouldn't be any responsibility placed on the manufacturers are saying is you'd rather throw good money after bad and take your chances with every RC product you buy. Really? When was the last time you ran back to the hobby shop to exchange or refund something you didn't like or didn't work? By your standard that option would be off the table and your stuck holding the bag. I hope you like paper weights...

Any dealer or manufacturer can be successful at this game if they incorporate and follow certain return/warranty policies and procedures. Failure to do so is a poor business decision and it will lead to bleeding out cash plain and simple.

Everyone is looking at this as a huge negative when in fact its a huge positive for a business to earn loyal possibly life long customers.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

i worked for a wholesale dealer for 10 yrs>> worked part time 15 yrs in a hobby shop never have i seen all the stuff come back to the hobby shop like some of you people talk about>>most of the things i see here come from overseas>> try american made jets sometime> go to a jet contest>> talk to american dealers see what they say

acerc

Actually when you buy that fridge you sign a waiver of damages if you carry it home. Now if they deliver it there is some warranty, but not unconditional. The problem with R/C is there are to many variables between the mfg and the final recipient. And NO! I don't expect replacement of any part. It is my responcibility to ensure I have a safe and air worthy model. Almost all of these type's of questions are rubbish. Let me ask this,

"When you make a mistake at work do you go clock out and then fix it? Do you reimburse the company any cost related to your mistake?

Unless your the owner the answer is "No". You continue getting paid whether you fix the error or someone else does.

Now go, buy more, take responsibility for the product and your responsibilities when you take possession of your R/C related product!

PhilYabelli

All this is not relevant to the question. The question is really simple:
Let's say you crash a plane, and the manufacturer accepts it is their fault. Is it reasonable to ask them to replace your engines too? In addition to the airframe? Yes?No?

Speedy-Gonzales

My Feedback: (202)

This is all very simple.

If the manufacturer offers a warranty then buy with confidence.

If the manufacturer does not, or there are terms and conditions, take that into consideration.

There is no written law that demands any given product to have a warranty or guarantee.

Surgical procedures do not have a warranty. Neither do courts of law and legal trials.

I would suggest "common sense" BEFORE you take your wallet out of your back pocket.

The only other recourse I can think of would be some form of insurance that you could purchase

from some idiot that would be willing to insure your model and have a business that is GUARANTEED to

go bankrupt in 12 months.

ira d

Something to think about as far as warranties go, Iam a repair tech in the office machine field mainly copiers and the standard for warranties for at least 35yr's
has always been 90 days on business equip. Where I work we get in new copiers all the time that have design deffects that the manufacturer is well aware of
but 91 days after the sale the customer is on his own be it a 1k price tag or 20K price tag. The main reason the manufactors get away with itis the dealer sells
a service agreement to most customersand since the customer only pays at the time the regular maintenance they dont realize that or paying for service
caused by adefect many times.