NASCAR sues Cessna


#1

The fatal crash of a Cessna 310R into a Sanford, Fla., neighborhood on July 10, 2007, has spawned a lawsuit prior to release of the NTSB’s final report on the crash. Michael Klemm, a NASCAR pilot, and Bruce Kennedy were killed when the aircraft attempted an emergency landing, clipped a tree and crashed into two houses, in which three more people died as a result of the crash. NASCAR has already paid at least $1 million to Klemm’s family and is seeking reimbursement for its payments to family members of those killed on the ground.

Early investigations by the NTSB cited an aircraft mechanic’s testimony that Klemm was aware of squawks with the aircraft, though the extent of his understanding of the reported problem is unknown. Aircraft records found at the accident site record a notation written by the pilot of the previous day’s flight, which described a “smell of electrical components burning.” According to the NTSB, there is no evidence that action was taken to address the issue. There were no witnesses found by the NTSB who could recall seeing either Klemm or Kennedy (who held a commercial pilot certificate) reviewing the aircraft’s discrepancy log prior to the flight. NASCAR believes the accident was caused by faulty wiring installed by Cessna when the aircraft was built, back in 1977. Its attorneys allege that “the incident was entirely due to the negligence or fault” of Cessna and “not the negligence or fault” of NASCAR, according to Daytona Beach’s News-Journal Online. Cessna’s lawyers were not available for comment.

AVweb.com


#2

This is why the GA companies are failing. Everyone sues them for accidents that could have been prevented by the pilots and ground crew.


#3

NASCAR is going to sue Cessna over some 30 year old electric wires? We really need to revamp the entire legal system in this country. The fact that Cessna has no option but to defend this nonsense is sad. We need less lawyers and more common sense. Shame on NASCAR for trying to shift blame to a manufacturer 30 years removed from the “problem”. It’s a joke.


#4

Agree completely. This is why we all pay so much to fly


#5

My wife is a law student. Take back what you said.

How about This- NASCAR can Fu*k off and and not sue Cessna for something they built 30 years ago.
The legal system doesn’t need to be revamped. People need to take responsibility for there actions. If NECKCAR oops NASCAR is going to use an airplane that is 30 years old they should realize that it might have a few problems.
I doubt they drive NASCARS that are 30 years old


#6

I agree completely. You’re right.


#7

It is really a bad move for NASCAR to sue Cessna. They would have no case against them for what happened. The a/c was manufactured over 30 years ago and as you all know, nothing stays perfect on an aircraft more than 10 years if that… My Cessna 172’s landing light goes out evey 7 landings it seems lol so why would NASCAR sue Cessna over faulty electrical wires when it was in mx discrepancies and the pilot overlooked it? Something should have told the pilot not to fly that day… It leaves me wondering WHAT ARE THEY THINKING !!!


#8

Its a frivolous suit at best, but the real crime is the fact that Cessna has to pay out the ass to defend such a ludicrous accusation. They have no choice. There has to be some form of penalty for filing such rubbish. Maybe make the lawyer pay a hefty fine for filing such a case and wasting everyones time and money. Maybe suspend them from practicing or better still throw them in jail for 90 days. Watch the caseload in the courts plummet and the boards go up on the law schools.


#9

The General Aviation Revitalization Act Of 1994 should take care of the them suing on a 30 year old plane. But I am sure they know more than I.

The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engages in scheduled passenger carrying operations.