Was Injured In An Accident Which Resulted In Two Deaths

The manufacturer of a air balloon which caught fire in Surry, British Columbia, Canada in 2007 ... which resulted in the fatal injury of two passengers aboard the balloon ... has been found not to be liable for the accident by the B.C. Supreme Court.

The pilot of the aircraft brought the suit seeking damages for injuries he sustained in the accident. According to court documents, pilot Stephen Robert Pennock, who has logged more than 2,000 hours as a balloon pilot, said a fuel line failed aboard the balloon, leading the an uncontrolled release of propane and the intense fire. He said the stress on the fuel line which caused it to break was the result of improper assembly and an unsafe design.

During testimony, Pennock argued that the balloon's fuel line was assembled improperly when it was manufactured by Aerostar at its factory, likely through the failure to insert the hose to an adequate depth in the fitting. This defect then resulted in the hose slowly pulling out of its fitting and failing on the day of the accident when it was pressurized. The plaintiffs also said that the design of the propane system was defective because there was no emergency shutoff or other mechanism to deal with the risk of a propane leak and fire. The plaintiffs said that although there is no direct evidence of improper assembly it can be inferred from the circumstantial evidence in this case. They submit that there is no evidence of improper use of the V15 hose and that should lead to the inference that the hose and fitting were improperly assembled. With regard to the design of the propane system, the plaintiffs submit that a propane fire in the balloon was a foreseeable hazard and Aerostar and Raven had a duty to investigate and install appropriate mechanisms to reduce the risk of fire such as a 90-degree shutoff valve, a halon suppression system or a thermal shutoff.

Aerostar countered that the Court could not conclude that the failure of the fuel hose could not have occurred in the absence of negligence by Aerostar. It argued that having over 30 years of assembly experience without a previous pull-out failure, should any inference be drawn, it should be that the failure resulted from in-service handling problems. Aerostar also said that when the fuel hose functioned properly for four years and was subject to daily and annual inspections, including one in May 2007 when it was declared 100% airworthy, it cannot be established on a balance of probabilities that the hose was defective when it left the factory. The company says that there is no evidence that a defect existed when the hose left the assembly plant and no evidence as to why the failure took place.

As to defective design, Aerostar said the plaintiff chose to modify Aerostar’s design by adding a supplementary fuel tank and line that was unanticipated by Aerostar and a use that the plaintiff knew was an impermissible addition to the fuel configuration of the balloon, and said that the design of one of the fail-safe systems referred to in the evidence is irrelevant because the loss would have occurred in any event because the fire occurred so quickly after the hose failure.

In his ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Gregory Bowden said that "In my view, the evidence does not exclude the V15 fuel line being subject to some form of Excessive Stress as a likely cause of its failure, in particular, while it was not in the possession of the plaintiff. I am left unable to find that the failure of the hose was due to either one of the two most likely causes identified by Mr. (Gilles) Amirault (an engineer and expert witness who provided testimony). Accepting that the two most likely causes of the hose failure were either improper assembly or Excessive Stress during service, and having concluded that the evidence does not exclude Excessive Stress as a likely cause, the plaintiff has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the failure occurred as a result of the improper assembly of the hose by Aerostar.

"I am also persuaded by Aerostar’s submission that in the circumstances of the fire in this case, a failsafe mechanism, which had to be operated by the plaintiff as pilot, would not have prevented the injury to the plaintiff and the loss of the balloon. The evidence of the plaintiff was that the fire occurred in a “heartbeat.” Also, he said that from the time when he heard a popping noise, it was almost instantaneous when he was effectively blown out of the gondola by the fire. It is also apparent that any device which stopped the release of propane from the tank when a fire occurred would not have prevented a fire resulting from liquid propane spraying out of the detached V15 fuel hose as it moved around inside the gondola. The plaintiff described being hit across his face by something, and liquid coming out of the fuel line and then being engulfed by flame. The evidence did not establish the extent to which the fire and resulting injuries and damage was attributable to the propane escaping from the V15 tank itself or the propane escaping from the pressurized fuel in the V15 fuel hose.

"The plaintiffs have not established that the inclusion in the balloon of any of the safety devices referred to would have prevented the fire and the resulting injuries and damage in this case.

"The plaintiffs’ statement of claim includes an allegation that the defendant, Aerostar, failed to warn the plaintiffs of the risks posed by the design and assembly of the propane burner system. As I have said, the evidence did not establish which of the two most likely causes identified by Mr. Amirault caused the failure of the hose; however, assuming that the failure was caused by its misuse while in service, the evidence does not establish that such misuse was foreseeable by the defendant Aerostar. Further, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that any failure to warn by Aerostar caused the loss in this case."

Justice Bowden dismissed Mr. Pennock's claim with costs to the defendant Aerostar.

According to the B.C. newspaper The Province, Lawsuits brought by the family of the passengers who were fatally injured in the accident, as well as those living in a trailer park where the burning balloon landed, were settled out of court.

FMI: http://courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court