[index] [month] [prev] [next] [thead-prev] [thread-next]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:11:26 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
<robert.gary@nospam.com> wrote:

>If you find such a case, please share it.

I received an email about one. Second hand knowledge but with an offer
to pass my request along to the affected CFI. I will accept it as true
for the purpose of this discussion. Since it was sent to me privately
I won't quote it verbatim. It involved a CFI instructing in a Bonanza
and the airplane landed gear up. The CFI was "successfully sued" (I
don't know if that means trial or settlement) for the cost of repair.

One risk that I think all CFIs =do= take is that we will always be
considered PIC. Other can disagree on this, but the PIC having to pay
for repairs to an airplane damaged due to PIC negligence is (1) in my
definition of acceptable risk and (2) not specific to being a CFI.

While I'm on definitions, "huge liability risk" to me means that both
the dollar exposure and the risk of being held responsible is high.

So, for example, I think that the one that CFIs and potential CFIs
worry about is not the airplane crashing while the CFI is on board but
the pilot who crashed during the two-year period after receiving a
flight review. Clearly the dollar exposure is high, but what of the
real risk of being sued?

In addition to flight instructor cases, I know there are some
physicians out there. During the "malpractice crisis" of the 80's, are
you aware of cases in which a medical school was successfully sued for
faulty instruction?

-
Mark Kolber
APA, Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
=========
email? replace "spamaway" with "mkolber

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: Should I do the Instrument Part 141 or part 61?, Suresh
Next message: Re: CFI liabilty, Skyking
Next message in thread: Re: CFI liabilty, Skyking
Previous message in thread: Re: CFI liabilty, Robert M. Gary