Thankfully, there are few major airplane crashes every year; however, there are far more small plane crashes and landings than large jets.  While we always hope that the people involved in the crash will be ok, what about the property damage that is done? In the U.S. there is a fair amount of controversy over when “strict liability” should govern.  Strict liability means that a person or corporation is responsible for the damage and losses caused by their acts or omissions regardless of the reason.  This is usually seen in product liability suits, but what about airplane accidents?

Lawsuits Against Airlines By Passengers

There have been many lawsuits filed by passengers (or their estates) against airlines, airplane makers, and maintenance companies, but the courts have usually held that there is no strict liability.  Instead, the passengers must usually prove some type of fault or negligence by the airline.  The reasoning behind this is that traveling by airplane does not constitute an “abnormally dangerous activity.”  Abnormally dangerous activities are things like storing thousands of pounds of TNT.

One note, liability for international flights are generally governed by the Warsaw Convention which limits a carrier’s liability to $8,300.  However, in 1966, a Montreal agreement raised the limit of carriers operating in the U.S. to $75,000 while imposing a “modified form of strict liability.” Those injured in an airplane crash usually need to hire an attorney who specializes in aviation law.

Lawsuits Against Airlines For Damage Done On The Ground

A key difference between passengers filing suit, and those that are innocent bystanders on the ground, is that strict liability would apply to damage done by an airplane crash whereas it would not for airline passengers.  For example, if a small plane crash landed on a house, destroying its kitchen, the airplane owner and the pilot would be strictly liable for the damage done.  The courts have defined strict liability for ground damage as that caused by “ascent, descent or flight of aircraft, or by the dropping or falling of an object from the aircraft.”

Do you think this differentiation is fair?  Should courts rule differently for those injured as passengers than for those injured on the ground?