Pennock v. Aerostar International, Inc.

Pennock v. Aerostar International, Inc.

Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Aerostar negligently assembled the V15 hose; the evidence did not exclude in-service excessive stresses as an equally likely cause, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that any design or lack of warning by Aerostar caused the loss or that proposed fail-safe devices would have prevented the rapid ignition; accordingly the claim is dismissed.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1422
Parties
Plaintiffs: Stephen Robert Pennock; SRP Adventure Tours Limited d.b.a. Fantasy Balloon Charters; Despen Enterprises Limited; Defendants: Aerostar International, Inc.; Raven Industries, Inc.; Adventure Flights Inc.; Jim Bilbrey; Third Party: Doug Scott
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Tort Products Liability / Personal Injury / Trial Reasons for Judgment (judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Manufacturing/assembly Defect, Design Defect, Failure to Warn, Causation, Expert Evidence, Risk Allocation
Source Language
English
Torts Products Liability Aviation Law Negligence Manufacturing/assembly Defect Design Defect Failure to Warn Causation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Robert Pennock; SRP Adventure Tours Limited d.b.a. Fantasy Balloon Charters; Despen Enterprises Limited

Plaintiffs

Aerostar International, Inc.; Raven Industries, Inc.; Adventure Flights Inc.; Jim Bilbrey

Defendants

Doug Scott

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Tort Products Liability / Personal Injury / Trial Reasons for Judgment (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Aerostar was negligent in assembling the V15 fuel hose
  2. 2 Whether Aerostar's design of the propane system was defective for lack of failsafe devices
  3. 3 Whether any alleged assembly or design defect caused the fire and plaintiff's injuries

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Aerostar negligently assembled the V15 hose; the evidence did not exclude in-service excessive stresses as an equally likely cause, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that any design or lack of warning by Aerostar caused the loss or that proposed fail-safe devices would have prevented the rapid ignition; accordingly the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Judgment for defendant Aerostar International, Inc.