The regulation that is the basis for at least some lawsuits is FAR 91.3(a), which states:
This is usually the basis for saying that whatever happens is the pilot’s fault.
As mentioned, I’m having some difficulty (it’s taking me 3-4 tries to get anything to post and I’m getting dropped off my connection a lot) but let’s see about examples:
First of all, the time I made an emergency landing in a field due to weather part of the clean up was making sure the landowner didn’t want compensation for damage to his field. As he had harvested the crop two days before this wasn’t much of an issue, more a formality.
I’m having trouble with a Google search, however, I’ll try to give you enough information to do your own search.
In 1996 a Gulfstream business jet rolled over on take-off. It became an everybody-sue-everybody-else situation
http://www.ainonline.com/issues/05_01/may_2001_21millionpg52.html
http://www.lpba.org/regfeat.htm
Although the families of the pilots received some compensation, it was reduced because of their responsibility in the accident. (Personally, I think the pilots were wholly responsible, and not the airport. Although I was not present the day of the accident, at the time I was based at that airport. The wind was strong enough that the weather instruments were blown off the top of the control tower - which indicates, to my mind, it may be too brisk for flying. But, despite the tower repeatedly advising against take off the pilots kept insisting they could handle it. They couldn’t.)
This was a slightly more recent accident, involving a mid-air between a local radio personality Bob Collins and a student pilot Sharon Hock
http://www.thetracon.com/news/times050601.htm
This one explicitly states Collin’s widow filed a lawsuit against the estate of Hock, as well as Hock’s father filing a lawsuit against the estate of Collins: http://www.thetracon.com/news/trib061300b.htm
As for the 70% I quoted - that’s generally given for ALL accidents.
In the famous (in aviation circles, at least) “Gimli Glider” case the error in fueling that lead to a jet running out of gas at cruising altitude was made by Air Canada line personnel, but the pilots were still held responsible - to the point of having their licenses suspended and discussion of criminal charges against them. Nevermind that their actions lead to a safe landing with no one hurt and only very minor damage to the jet.
And pilot error may be blamed even in a case of mechanical failure. Flight 587 that crashed in New York City after the rudder fell off has been blamed, in part or in whole (depending on who you listen to) on the pilots - the rationale being that they applied the rudder controls too forcefully after being caught in another plane’s wake turbulence.
You are correct that such verdicts can financially ruin a pilot’s family. That’s true even of small airplanes and their crashes. Even if the pilot IS wholly at fault (and that does happen) I’m not sure how deprieving their relatives of an inheritance is supposed to help the situation - the relatives certainly didn’t cause the crash. I think it really does stem from the “well, somebody has to be punished/pay for this” attitude of our society.