Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Cirrus SR22 Crash Ruling Overturned

By Bethany Whitfield / Published: Apr 27, 2011
Rate it! or

A Minnesota appeals court has reversed an earlier ruling that held Cirrus Design Corp. liable for a 2003 SR22 crash that killed two men on a trip to see their sons play in a hockey tournament. The new ruling nullifies the $14.4 million verdict awarded to the families of the two men by a jury of a lower court in 2009.

The crash occurred at dawn on Jan. 18, 2003, approximately eight minutes after pilot Gary Prokop, 47, and James Kosak, 51, took off in marginal VFR conditions in north west Minnesota. According to the NTSB, the Cirrus SR22 crashed into a heavily wooded area after the pilot encountered instrument conditions. Prokop was a VFR, single-engine land pilot working on his instrument rating. He had only 19 hours in an SR22 at the time of the incident.

The passenger’s estate sued both Cirrus and Prokop for negligence. Prokop’s estate also sued the Duluth-based manufacturer. The plaintiffs alleged that Cirrus had not provided sufficient training to Prokop, particularly with regard to the airplane’s autopilot system. The 2009 jury found Cirrus 75 percent negligent and Prokop 25 percent negligent.

In the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling, the justices maintained that “although proficiency training undoubtedly promoted the safe use of the SR22 (model of airplane), we find no support in the law for (the) proposition that Cirrus's duty to warn included an obligation to train Prokop to proficiently pilot the SR22.” Citing a state law created to prevent plaintiffs from suing for “educational malpractice,” the court ruled that the lawsuit never should have been brought in the first place. 

One judge dissented, maintaining that Cirrus was responsible for the pilot’s transition training because it was included in the SR22 purchasing agreement.

Comments (3) Post a comment

All Comments

RFHamelJr's picture

This ruling is truly "A breath of fresh air!"

No aircraft manufacturer can undertake the task of transitioning a VFR pilot to an instrument rated one. IFR pilot training requires a long-term time commitment and many hours of in-air training, ground school, recurrent training and regular practice. The task of training a pilot not to operate an aircraft in MVFR conditions under the stress of "Get there-itis," is more the bailiwick of psychiatry. Bad judgment can crop up at any time, and god knows that over-confidence is an aviation (not aircraft) hazard.

One wonders if this type of legal overhang isn't responsible for the soon to be announced sale of Cirrus, and the demise of Columbia and Mooney.

We are all the poorer that the tangle of mis-applied liability risk weighs on general aviation.

Ray Hamel

ChampPilot44's picture

Good comment Ray.
As sorry as I am for these families' losses, this is a "win" for GA. We all pay the insurance premiums and know that hungry lawyers will sue anything and everything when there is an accident. If this poor pilot would have crashed into a forest they would have sued the trees for being in the way!

Captain Ray's picture

Unfortunately, yet another accident of someone flying into situations they are not prepared. John F. Kennedy Jr. did the same thing. No horizon to a VFR pilot is deadly and limitations need to be always at the forefront of a decision to fly an aircraft in marginal weather. Very sad two people got killed when they should have decided to drive rather than fly.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use