The airplanes in the skies today are larger, faster, and more complex than any other planes in history. Every part on every plane must be at 100 percent efficiency for the aircraft to fly safely. If even one component is off, there is a very high potential for serious injury. But innovative and untested designs, along with mass production at huge facilities, often creates defective parts. As in many other areas, the law is very complex when it comes to these injuries.<\/p>\n
At Napoli Law, many of nasi prawnicy<\/a> are also pilots. So, they have a unique perspective in \u00a0these cases. They understand that critical components sometimes work well for thousands of miles. But they prematurely break without warning, and that causes serious injury.<\/p>\n Defective product matters are also inherently complex. An attorney must partner with engineers, designers, accident reconstructionists, and other professionals to build a compelling case for damages. In short, you need a lawyer with nearly unlimited resources and nearly limitless passion for your case. That means you need Napoli Law.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In a nutshell, many companies put profits before people. The notorious Ford Pinto case from the 1970s is a good example.<\/p>\n At the time, Ford faced intense competition from small and cheap foreign and domestic cars. In response, then-Chairman Lee Iacocca gave his subordinates some unusual instructions. He told them to design and build a car that weighed no more than 2,000 pounds and cost no more than $2,000. To conserve weight, the designers put the gas tank outside the rear axle. To save money, the gas tank lacked a protective lining.<\/p>\n The result was a series of low-speed, rear-impact collisions which turned into deadly fireball wrecks. But Ford refused to change the design. Its accountants calculated the cost of repairs to be higher than the cost of paying settlements.<\/p>\n That mentality continues. In 2018, Takata paid $650 million to settle claims related to defective airbags. The company omitted a key chemical drying agent in the airbag\u2019s propellant. As a result, the airbags were prone to sudden explosion. Fifteen people died and hundreds were seriously injured. Desiccant, the required drying agent, is commonly found in new luggage and costs almost nothing.<\/p>\n These two incidents reflect the two legal theories involved in most New York defective product cases. These theories are:<\/p>\n Wiele razy sprawy dotycz\u0105ce wadliwych produkt\u00f3w zamieniaj\u0105 si\u0119 w du\u017ce pozwy zbiorowe. Ford sprzeda\u0142 tysi\u0105ce wadliwych Pinto, a Takata miliony wadliwych poduszek powietrznych. Pozew regionalny lub og\u00f3lnokrajowy jest dla tych ofiar najlepszym sposobem uzyskania sprawiedliwo\u015bci i odszkodowania.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This legal process is not as straightforward in General Aviation matters. GA describes all aviation with is non-commercial and non-military. According to the American Medical Association, smaller GA aircraft are eighty-two times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than commercial or military aircraft.<\/p>\n Despite the higher risk, there are some additional legal obstacles. In 1994, lawmakers enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act. GARA imposes an 18-year statute of repose in GA defective product cases.<\/p>\n In a statute of limitations, the clock begins ticking when the victims learn the full nature and extent of their injuries. But in a statute of repose, the clock begins ticking when the victim bought the defective product. Normally, statutes of repose are designed to block lawsuits and deny fair compensation to victims.<\/p>\n But GARA is a little different. Congress intended for this law to weed out frivolous lawsuits and not to derail meritorious ones. So, GARA has a number of exceptions. They include:<\/p>\n Niekt\u00f3re stany uchwali\u0142y statut spoczynku GA, kt\u00f3ry jest bardziej restrykcyjny ni\u017c GARA. W takim przypadku kontroluje je prawo stanowe. Inne zasady maj\u0105 r\u00f3wnie\u017c zastosowanie do samolot\u00f3w wojskowych i komercyjnych.<\/p>\nDlaczego producenci sprzedaj\u0105 wadliwe produkty?<\/h2>\n
\n
Niekt\u00f3re zasady specjalne w sprawach GA<\/h2>\n
\n