So, in other (fewer) words, he could have been operating IFR in uncontrolled airspace. But, as we all know, what’s legal ain’t always smart.
Well, for many airports if you’re departing IFR you don’t have any choice - the first 800 vertical feet are uncontrolled. If you know the proper departure procedures and are both current and competant the risk probably is minimally greater than doing the departure from the airport in VFR conditions. The trick is you have to be just as precise on the departure as in any other phase of an IFR flight.
Just an aside here, but the article says the tower was 320 metres, which is about 1000 feet high.
KF
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I thought that you were suggesting that we could conclude the tower wasn’t insured, since the suit was brought in the name of the owner of the tower rather than the insurance company. My point is that we can’t tell from that information alone if the tower was insured, since in either case the suit would be brought in the name of the ower of the tower, not in the name of the insurance company.
Wait, how can they sue the family? The family was no where near the tower when the man crashed into it. The family did not create the fog or steer the plane or distract the pilot, right? So how can they be held responsible?
Now I understand that if the pilot is at fault, then the company should be able to seek restitution from the man’s estate. Fine. Would the life insurance payout be part of the estate? I don’t see why, it was not an assest at the moment of his death. It was an assest of the beneficiary though? OK, so what did the guy own? A house, a plane, a couple of cars, whatever. The family probably could claim half ownership on these though right? So the company, if they took everything in the estate to cover the damages, would get half a house (or the whole house if there is no joint ownership) the cars, the bank account, the plane…
Am I being naive? How can they expect to get anything from the family. Any lawyers want to comment? Doesn’t this case run against the fact that debt cannot be passed on to your children?
Sorry for the bad grammer and spelling, the post above was typed in haste (with wine too).
I’m assuming that the company is, in fact, suing the estate, and the reporter has no idea what he’s talking about.
I guess that’s what’s bugging me - not that there’s a lawsuit to recover property, but that there’s a lawsuit against the surviving familly. What if it had been a tornado that had taken the tower down? Then they would have taken the loss, or the insurance would have paid out, and that would have been that. What if the man had had no familly?
The other strange thing is the length of time - 3 years to decide to sue? Coincidently right before the statute of limitations is up, and right around the time that the company is in serious financial difficulty? I know companies take awhile to figure stuff out, but that’s kind of ridiculous. At this point I’d have to assume the estate is out of probate, which makes it even more complicated.
But I agree with others - we don’t really have all the facts here, and that could make a difference.
I was a little unclear. It’s my understanding that you generally declare bankruptcy when your outstanding debts outweigh your available assets, and you can no longer meet your obligations (monthly payments or whatever). So when the familly declares that they would have to declare bankruptcy, that implies to me that they do not have millions of dollars to give to the tower owners. So pretty much everything they own would be liquidated, the tower owners would get some amount (no idea how much, but I’m guessing less than a million), and the surviving familly is left with a huge mark on their credit history. Essentially punishing surviving familly members for the dead man’s mistake.
Northern Piper, I see the argument of “responsibility to shareholders” a lot. Although it’s technically correct, in my opinion it usually boils down to money. Somebody (or some poeple) in this company are standing to loose a lot of money here, and they feel this is the way to recoup their losses. If we go by this premise, then this action is about nothing more than self-interest and greed.
IMHO, of course.
Here is my 2 cents:
If the accident occurred in fog, then the pilot had to have been IFR rated to be legally flying. Assuming the tower’s location and height was marked on the aviation map and assuming the pilot had a current version of the map (required by FAA), then it was his responsiblity to avoid hitting the tower. That being said, I feel that it is not unreasonable for the company to sue his estate. (I’d better increase my insurance.)
However, I see no point in bankrupting the man’s family. I am puzzled by the companies motivation. Since the company is in financial trouble, could there be an accounting / tax reason to attempt a lawsuit, have the family declare bankruptcy, and then the company could write off a big amount on their books? Can you write off awarded but unclaimed damages? That might explain why they inflated the cost of the tower.
Ok, back to it. How can they sue the family for more then what his property is worth? If he had $40,000 in the bank, 2 cars and house, and if the family aquired all this stuff, fine go after that and only that. It would not be right to go after the family for anything outside of inheritance or whatever, it wasn’t their fault! They shouldn’t be obligated to pay the full $2.5m if they don’t have it, only what was aquired after the mans death.
This happened in Canada, not the US. Without studying the Canadian regulations, it’s hard to speculate whether or not he was in compliance.
For instance, how do we know he wasn’t legal IFR, and got accidentally vectored below the MVA by ATC? Obstructions aren’t usually marked on a low altitude IFR enroute chart. MVA isn’t either. For all we know, a controller flew him into that tower.
Probably best to not fault him until we know more. If we ever do.
Just one small nit to pick in an otherwise excellent post. If you are a pilot and have life insurance, there will NOT be a rider excluding death in a private plane. Any and all forms of death are included, and covered (except for suicide during the first 2 years).
If you have accidental death rider coverage on the policy, ADD will not be paid for a death in any plane where the insured had any duties related to the flight.
In other words:
Piloting plane = Basic death benefit paid NO accidental death benefit.
Passenger = Basic death benefit paid, accidental death benefit paid.
Carry on.
It’s not any more difficult to grasp than the concept that a company which would financially ruin a dead man’s family for something he did by accident just because it was legally entitled to do so is deserving of scorn and contempt.
Key point is that the deceased lived in Québec, which is a civil law jurisdiction. The principles of inheritance are one of the major differences between the common law and the civil law.
It’s been a while since I studied Québec civil law, but my (fuzzy) recollection is that in the civil law of succession [the equivalent to wills and estates in common law jurisdictions], there is no concept of an “estate”, which is the general concept int the common law. The estate in common law survives as a separate legal entity after death, is liable for the debts of the deceased, and only gets distributed after the debts are paid.
In civil law systems, every individual has a “patrimoine” which consists of the “actif” (assets) and the “passif” (debts). When an individual dies, his or her general legatee has the right to accept or renounce the succession. If the general legatee accepts the succession, s/he gets the patrimoine (less specific bequests to others), both the actif and the passif. So under this system, it is possible to inherit another person’s debts.
If my memory is working correctly, then it sounds like the widow (who would normally be the general legatee) accepted the succession, and so is now saddled with the passif, which includes the potential civil liability.
Of course, all of this is very fuzzy, and certainly should not be taken as legal advice about succession law in Québec, but simply as comment on a matter of public interest.
Northern Piper, if you are correct about this it puts a new (an sinister) spin on the situation. I was of the general opinion that it was not particularly greedy of the company to sue. Collecting money that is owed you is not greedy, and if the pilot was at fault then his estate owes. Now we see a whole new possibility.
Several people have pondered why the company waited so long to sue. The answer may be that they were waiting to ensure that the inheritance was complete so that they would now be able to hit the family’s full assets, rather than just the pilot’s by waiting until the widow accepted the succession.
Could be, could not be, but would be nasty if true.
Wow… You learn something new every day. This raises some more questions though.
How can she accept the succession when she was not aware of all the debts? Now that she is aware of this 2.5 million dollar debt, can she renounce the succession? And am I correct in assuming that the succession is separate from any insurance payout to her as the beneficiary of a policy?
Anybody out there familiar with civil law?
Can’t speak for Canada, but here in the US even if a controller vectored a pilot into an obstruction, the pilot could still be held liable.
Under US regs, it is the pilot’s responsibility to learn about all aspects affecting a flight - and that would include obstructrions. Certainly, information about local obstructions is printed in both the Airports and Facilities Directory (and derivatives), as well as being a feature of approach plates.
Sure, a controller can vector towards an obstruction - but if the pilot is aware of the hazard (as he is supposed to be) then he is well within rights to refuse the clearance for safety reasons.
None of which sheds any light on this particular situation, nor does it any way imply I condone the actions of the company sueing the pilot’s family (or estate, as the case may be)
Well, yes, actually. I have a degree in it, although I’ve never practiced in the Quebec system. So I’m fuzzy on details, but familiar enough with the general thrust of civil law for purposes of a message board discussion.
We would need a lot more info to be able to comment. The pilot could have held liability insurance, which pays out to someone who is injured by the pilot’s actions - that would never enter the pilot’s succession. The pilot could have held personal life insurance, and designated himself as his beneficiary, so the money would go to his succession, in which case it would pass to the legatees. Or he could have designated someone else as the beneficiary, like his wife, in which case the payout would have been to her directly, not as part of the succession. Too many options, too little info, to be able to do much more than identify the possibilities.
No, it doesn’t work that way. Even if the general legatee accepts the succesion, there’s a limit to how much of the debts of the deceased she’s liable for. The relevant provision is in art. 625 of the Civil Code of Québec:
So any claims would be limited to the amount the general legatee received from the succession; it doesn’t look to me like the claimants could go after the patrimoine of the general legatee, beyond the amount she got from the deceased’s patrimoine.
So I’m a bit puzzled why they’re talking about the claims bankrupting her. Obviously, we don’t have nearly enough information to do much more than speculate and fulminate, according to one’s own take on the situation.
And, as always, the above comments are just comments on a matter of public interest, not in any way to be construed as legal advice. If you’re afraid you may fly a small plane into a transmission tower in Québec and want advice about the potential effect on your heirs, please consult counsel knowledgeable about Québec law.
There was a little snippet in today’s G&M that said the tower owners have abandoned their claim against the family, saying that it was a mistake - they thought they needed to sue the family to claim against the pilot’s liability insurance. That strikes me as a big WTF? The only thing I can think of (and I have to say it’s purely speculation) is that they suddenly realised a limitation period was coming up, sued everyone to preserve their rights, and then did a more careful review of the insurance issue afterwards.
At any rate, it now sounds like it’s just lawyers fighting with insurance companies, so everyone should be happy. 
Thanks for all the info Northern Piper.