[middie]

Having been fortunate enough to survive slightly over 10,700 hours of pilot-in-command time--of which at least 0ne-third was in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions--ie: really bad weather), the failure of a vacuum pump at a critical point in the instrument approach is expected to result in an early intersection with the ground. Moving at a low speed, just above stall speed, in a turn that increases the risk of disorientation and low-wing stall, and a loss of physical spatial relationship with the rest of the world, all make for imminent tragedy.

The crash was found to be not pilot error and the fault of a failed product that, had it functioned properly, would have made the approach and landing an uneventual happening.

Our tort/negligence system is based on fault, not who one is or one's status. Fault and the forseeability of the consequence of one's failure to act reasonably. In this case, the foreseeable result from a profit oriented manufacturer placing a defective product into the stream of commerce and it being used for the purpose for which it was intended and sold and nonetheless causing an injury by its unreasonable failure.

The jury did the right thing and so did the widow. That's the way the system is meaqnt to operate.

[expatpat]

You appear to have it wrong, here. The available evidence points to a failure of the AI, not the vacuum pump, which was apparently still spinning at impact (plus, there was a backup pump). Unfortunately, this same tort system you revere assessed damages against the vacuum-pump manufacurer, not the AI manufacturer.

Finally, more generally, no piece of equipment that has ever been designed and built will function forever without failure, and to impute negligence to that failure is a distortion of the intent of the tort system.