Providing instruction and training to pilot candidates for any ratings or certificates is not without potential liability, but the answer to the question of how much and what types of liability is a little more murky. It may vary from state to state.
Specifically, the question of educational liability is one that has arisen in some recent cases. Educational liability may include a variety of areas of concern such as discrimination, employment practices, retaliation, sexual harassment, violation of intellectual property rights, whistle-blower charges, and others. The one that is most concerning to some in aviation is the educational liability concern of "educational malpractice."
Many large institutions carry insurance coverage that is intended to be comprehensive in its coverage of many areas of concern, including educational malpractice. This is coverage that few flight training providers carry.
Educational malpractice claims in a flight training context can include claims or suit against a training provider (typically in a civil court venue) when a tragedy befalls a current or former student and there is a claim that the training they were provided was not proper, adequate, or that it was erroneous. In these cases, an attempt to place blame for a tragedy (and potentially to recover damages) may be made.
Defending such a claim is not only potentially costly in the event that a case is lost, but just the process of defending (even successfully) such a claim may be so costly that it is impossible for the training provider to survive such a claim.
Bill DeYoung from Chuhak & Tecson (www.chuhak.com) has provided the following examples of recent aviation cases relating to educational malpractice.
The Minnesota Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of educational malpractice in the aviation context by making its ruling on another unrelated basis -- leaving Minnesota law favorable to aviation eductors.
GLORVIGEN v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORP.
Minnesota Supreme Court
In the recent case of GLORVIGEN v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORP. the issue of educational malpractice was presented to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Gary R. Prokop and his passenger died when Prokop's Cirrus SR22 airplane crashed near Hill City. Prokop had purchased the SR22 just one month before the crash. Along with the purchase of an SR22, Cirrus provided a training program for new owners. One of the program's lessons detailed how to recover from a particular emergency flying situation in the SR22. Prokop never received that lesson, and was alleged to have been attempting to recover from that emergency situation when he crashed. The estates of both the pilot and his passenger filed suit against Cirrus as a manufacturer and seller, claiming it breached its duty to warn and to provide adequate instruction for the safe use of its airplanes. Cirrus sought indemnity from University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation (UNDAF) with which Cirrus had contracted to provide the training to the new owners. The Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an airplane manufacturer owed a duty to a noncommercial pilot who, after purchasing an airplane from the manufacturer but failing to receive all of the flight training promised to him as part of that purchase, died when his airplane crashed. In the lower courts a jury had found that the manufacturer was negligent. However, the court of appeals reversed that ruling and concluded that the manufacturer did not have a duty to provide training and that the claims were barred by the educational malpractice doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the appellate court finding that the manufacturer did not owe a duty to the pilot. However, the Supreme Court determined that because the court's ruling found that no duty even existed, the Supreme Court did not need to reach the other issues. Therefore, the Court did not address, among other things, the issues of educational malpractice or causation. While a strong ruling from a state Supreme Court confirming that claims against aviation educators and trainers for their instruction would have been welcome, the Minnesota Appellate Court opinion still provides strong and convincing support for prohibiting claims against aviation educators.
Claims for Educational Malpractice Claims Against
Flight Instructors Are Barred in Illinois
WAUGH v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC.
The Illinois appellate court just provided some significant protection to Flight Schools and Flight instructors in Illinois when it affirmed a lower court's ruling which prohibited claims against flights instructors based upon negligent training. On January 30, 2006, a Cessna 421B crashed on approach to Palwaukee Airport in Wheeling, Illinois, killing all four aboard. The alleged pilot had undergone recent pilot training with two flight schools. He also spent five hours with a certified flight instructor (CFI) as part of a requirement to qualify for insurance in the plane. Various suits were initiated and included claims against the flight schools and the CFI for alleged negligent pilot training. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the trial court dismissed all claims for negligent training and instruction, and held that Illinois does not recognize the tort of "educational malpractice." The affected parties appealed challenging the trials court's ruling and contending that even if the claims were to be barred against the flight schools, they should be allowed against the individual CFI as he was a "non-traditional educational institution" in which there existed a "much closer and immediate" relationship. FSANA filed an amicus brief that supported the arguments of the flight schools and the individual instructor. FSANA's amicus brief was able to deftly highlight the strong public policy reasons why claims of this type should not be allowed. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the lower court's ruling, refusing to recognize the tort of educational malpractice. The appellate court also rejected appellants' arguments that even if educational malpractice claims are generally barred, they should be allowed against the CFI because he or she was not a traditional educational institution. The court found no legal basis to treat a CFI differently from flight schools. The appellate court based its decision on several public policy considerations and specifically relied upon the fact that it is a practical impossibility to prove that the alleged malpractice of an educator proximately caused the deficiency which led to the accident.
