Determining Liability After an Airplane Crash

Digging Deep to Find Answers and Fight for What You Deserve

Airplane accidents don’t feel abstract when you’re the one in the aisle. Sirens, questions, and that tight feeling in your chest. You want straight answers about who’s responsible and what you can do next. You also want a plan that respects your pain and your time.

Our aviation and airplane accident attorneys at Horn Wright, LLP, handle aviation cases in New York and also serve New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. Each state treats deadlines and fault a bit differently, and those details change strategy fast. 

New York uses Civil Practice Law & Rules Section 214(5) for most injury suits and Estates, Powers, & Trusts Law Section 5-4.1 for wrongful death. Other states shift the rules on negligence and recovery. If you need clear steps now, reach out to our team at (855) 465-4622 and we’ll map your options with you.

Why Liability Shapes Your Entire Case

Liability is the hinge your case swings on. In New York, you recover by proving someone acted carelessly or a product failed in a way that made harm foreseeable. That’s negligence and product liability in plain terms. When we lock in the “why,” we control the story and the path to compensation.

Timing intersects with proof. Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) take time, but your legal clocks keep ticking. 

New York’s CPLR Section 214(5) sets three years for injury claims, and EPTL Section 5-4.1 allows two years for wrongful death. We move early to preserve data, issue hold letters, and request records before they scatter across agencies and vendors.

Liability also decides who sits at the table. A clear cause points to airlines, operators, manufacturers, or government entities. When the right parties are named, discovery opens doors to maintenance logs, training files, and black box data. That’s where accountability lives.

Airlines and Operators Who Gamble With Safety

When companies trim safety to save time or money, risk finds passengers. Your claim shines a light on those choices. We start by pulling policies, records, and maintenance histories. Then we test them against what should have happened.

• Training built on shortcuts. Thin simulator time leaves crews guessing under stress. Emergency drills get rushed, and rare events feel brand new in the cockpit. Training logs and syllabi tell a story that juries understand. When the syllabus is weak, the risk lands on you.
• Maintenance pushed past safe limits. Deferred tasks roll forward until a part fails. Repeat write-ups on the same system signal bigger problems. We match log entries to incidents and show how a fixable issue turned into harm. That pattern speaks louder than excuses.
• Duty days that drain judgment. Fatigue slows reactions and magnifies small mistakes. Rosters and rest records show whether the schedule was safe or reckless. When a crew is tired by design, responsibility climbs the ladder.
• Ignored FAA directives. Safety directives exist to stop known hazards. Delays and workarounds put aircraft back in service before risks are addressed. We compare required actions to what was done and when. Compliance gaps push liability toward the operator.

Pilot Judgments That Put You At Risk

Pilots carry heavy responsibility in crowded New York airspace. Decisions under pressure shape outcomes more than most people realize. We don’t guess about those choices. We read them in the data and the procedures that should have controlled the moment.

First, our personal injury attorneys analyze the critical phases. Takeoff and landing demand discipline. Unstable approaches should lead to go-arounds. If a pilot continued a bad approach into a short runway at LaGuardia, we’ll show how standard procedure required a reset. That contrast helps juries see how risk turned into injury.

Second, we evaluate communication. Radio calls with air traffic control matter, especially around JFK. Missed readbacks, stepped-on transmissions, or late clearances show where situational awareness broke down. Cockpit voice recordings, transcripts, and tower logs create a timeline that doesn’t rely on memory.

Third, we surface human factors. Fatigue, workload, automation confusion, and startle response appear in the data. Checklists and quick reference handbooks exist for a reason. When crews skip items or mismanage automation, the record shows it. We connect those dots to support negligence under New York law.

Defective Parts and Broken Maintenance Chains

Not every case centers on human error. Machines fail and small components can trigger big outcomes. We chase the paper trail and the engineering until the cause is clear.

• Design defects that invite failure. Some problems start on the drawing board. A system might tolerate less ice than advertised or react unpredictably in crosswinds. Engineering analysis reveals weaknesses that were baked in. When the design was unsafe, the manufacturer sits in the spotlight.
• Production errors that slip through. The blueprint was sound, but the build wasn’t. Substituted materials, flawed welds, or miscalibrated sensors reach the line. Quality control records and batch data expose where the process broke. Those facts anchor liability with clarity.
• Bad or missing warnings. Pilots and mechanics rely on guidance to operate and repair safely. If instructions buried hazards or skipped crucial steps, risk increased silently. Courts take missing warnings seriously because they change real-world behavior. Clear warnings save lives.
• Maintenance chains with weak links. Airlines swap parts and defer work when schedules squeeze. A single missed inspection can undo months of routine care. We map every service entry to show how a predictable failure arrived on your flight. That map tells a jury the truth.

Air Traffic Control Errors and Government Exposure

Controllers guide aircraft through some of the busiest corridors in the country. When coordination slips, danger builds fast. Cases tied to tower mistakes or system failures add layers because government entities may be involved.

We start with the record. Transcripts show who said what and when. Radar data reveals spacing, altitude, and conflicts on approach or departure. If the tower cleared two aircraft onto the same runway or issued a turn that created convergence, the evidence will show it. Those facts become the core of responsibility.

Claims may fall under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) or similar rules, which carry shorter deadlines and special procedures. Missing those dates ends claims before they begin. We file early, preserve evidence, and identify the proper agency or contractor quickly. That speed keeps your options open while the investigation runs.

Finally, we look at systemic issues. Staffing shortages, overtime patterns, and equipment outages change risk inside the tower. Duty rosters and maintenance notices reveal stress points that make errors more likely. When the system was set to fail, accountability reaches beyond one controller.

Shared Fault and How New York Splits Responsibility

Most crashes aren’t the result of a single mistake. New York’s CPLR Article 14-A uses comparative negligence to divide responsibility across defendants. That structure matters in your case, your negotiation, and your verdict.

First, shared liability widens the path to recovery. If a pilot missed a call but the airline also skipped maintenance, both can contribute to your damages. You aren’t forced to pick one villain. The law lets juries assign percentages so the total adds up to fairness.

Second, comparative fault changes settlement pressure. Defendants argue with each other about shares. That infighting can help you. When multiple carriers and manufacturers worry about exposure, offers improve because no one wants to be the last one standing at trial.

Third, the rules differ for certain damages and post-verdict adjustments. We account for CPLR Section 1601 and potential setoffs under GOL Section 15-108 when releases come into play. Those details shape strategy on who to sue, when to settle, and how to structure agreements.

Building a Liability Case That Won’t Budge

Strong cases look simple on the outside because the hard work sits underneath. We layer facts until the picture is obvious and durable.

• Lock down the evidence early. Preservation letters go out to airlines, manufacturers, and maintenance shops. Black box data, logs, manuals, and communications get secured. Early control prevents “missing” records later. A clean chain builds credibility.
• Translate the tech into plain language. Aeronautical engineers, human-factors experts, and biomechanical specialists connect science to your injuries. Reports explain how forces caused harm and why choices mattered. Clear explanations win with adjusters and jurors. Clarity becomes leverage.
• Match the facts to New York law. Timelines align with CPLR Section 214(5) and, if needed, EPTL Section 5-4.1. Liability theories track negligence and product defect standards. We plan for apportionment and future setoff issues. Solid footing drives negotiation.
• Present a human story with numbers that add up. Medical records, wage data, and life-care plans define the ask. We show how injuries changed your days, your work, and your sleep. When the math meets the story, value clicks into place. That’s when real offers arrive.

Protect What Matters Most After a Crash

Liability isn’t a buzzword. It’s the bridge between what happened on that flight and the resources you’ll need to rebuild. When we pinpoint fault, we protect your care, your income, and your future. 

At Horn Wright, LLP, our work has been recognized for results and client care. Let’s push for an outcome that respects what you’ve lived through and where you’re headed. Connect with us today to schedule your free case review.