The Travis Scott accident of 1990 - and its aftermath

Here are the facts as described by the High Court, paraphrased and without legal jargon.  The case is Scott v Davis [2000] HCA 52 (5 October 2000) which is available in full in the law reports and on the net.

Mr Davis is an owner of a property at Rowland Flat on Jacobs Creek in the Barossa Valley of the State of South Australia. An aircraft hangar and runway are located on the property. Mr Davis is a vintage aeroplane enthusiast and licensed pilot and he owns several light aeroplanes for his private use. One of these was an Aeronca 65 HP high wing monoplane. On 29 July 1990, Mr and Mrs Davis held a party at their property for their daughter's 21st birthday. Mr. and Mrs Scott attended together with their 11-year-old son Travis.  Mr. Scott and Mrs. Davis are brother and sister.

Several other guests at the social occasion were pilots. One, Mr Michael Bradford, was a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. He held a pilot's licence but one that was not endorsed to permit the performance of aerobatics.

There were three boys present at the function in addition to Travis: his younger brother, Tyson, and two brothers, the Beechings. After lunch, their fathers, Mr Scott and Mr Beeching, approached Mr Davis and asked whether there would be a chance of the boys having a ride in an aeroplane. Mr Davis replied that he would think about it, and later asked Mrs Davis to arrange for Mr Bradford to take the boys for a flight in an aeroplane.

Mr Bradford took Travis flying in the Aeronca. It was a fine day, with some cloud and a light tailwind. Mr Bradford was sitting in the front, pilot's seat, and Travis was sitting behind him in the passenger seat.

The Aeronca continued until it passed over Jacobs Creek, when it began to turn to the west. Watchers from near the hangar saw nothing remarkable to this stage. The turn was not particularly steep. Part way through that turn, the left wing dropped, the nose swung down and the plane almost instantaneously headed down in a vertical, anti clockwise spiral. It vanished behind the trees on the creek line. On the way down, its wings (or one of them) and/or the undercarriage appear to have brushed tree branches.

The plane hit the ground nose-first, in an almost vertical position. Mr Bradford was killed instantly. Travis was seriously injured. Several of those who witnessed the accident rushed to the scene and extricated Travis. Mr and Mrs Scott saw the plane go down and arrived at the scene after Travis had been pulled free. Both suffered nervous shock upon seeing him injured, Mrs Scott suffering rather more acutely than her husband.

Those are the facts as described by the High Court.

Everyone reading this would have great sympathy for Travis.

By suing someone, Travis would be able to get money.  No doubt he needed a great deal of money to care for his injuries and to compensate him.  The problem was that it was the pilot who was negligent - and his estate didn't have enough money.  So Travis had to sue someone else, and he chose to sue Mr. Davis, the owner of the plane.  But the High Court eventually decided that Mr. Davis was not negligent, so Travis got no money.  Nor, probably, did his lawyers.

The solution that AOPA proposes is the introduction of COMPULSORY no-fault third-party insurance for all private aircraft.

I say that is quite inappropriate.  What if, instead of going for a ride in an aircraft, Travis had gone for a ride on a horse and fallen?  Or climbed a tree, fallen down and broken his back?  Or if the boys had gone skylarking on a tractor?  Or if Travis had been bitten by a brown snake? Children face thousands of hazards - and the risk of having an accident in a private aircraft is very far down the list.  If AOPA wants to solve this problem, it needs to be done another way - such as by compelling all parents to insure their children against the inevitable risks of childhood, or all people to insure themselves against the risks of life.

If AOPA wants private aircraft owners to carry NO-FAULT third-party insurance, shouldn't it first spend some time explaining to its members what it sees as the need for this and encouraging its members to take out such insurance voluntarily?  Why the immediate resort to the compulsive approach?

Just remember what actually happened here.

Mr Davis was the host.  Travis and his parents were Mr. Davis's guests.

Travis's parents REQUESTED a ride in a plane for their son.

Mr. Davis very generously arranged that and obtained a pilot.

There was nothing wrong with Mr. Davis's plane.  Mr. Davis was not negligent and was not at fault in any way.

So how come Mr Davis should have to pay for Travis's injuries?  Why shouldn't Travis's own father pay? After all, it was he who asked for his son to be taken for a ride in the plane.

And how come every aircraft owner in Australia should now have to have NO FAULT third-party insurance to compensate someone who is injured even if the owner has done nothing wrong.

NO-FAULT third-party insurance is vastly more expensive that normal third-party insurance for obvious reasons.

This entire exercise smacks of the thinking that because Joe owns a 'plane he must be rich, so let's soak him.

Just whose side is AOPA on? In calling for COMPULSORY NO-FAULT insurance, is AOPA representing the interests of pilots? Or is AOPA really representing the interests of lawyers?