Recalls and Class Action Verdicts: Stocker v. Bell Helicopter

Stocker v. Bell Helicopter

November 29, 1994

RESULT: Pilot settled for $ 1,250,000 and the owner of the ranch settled for $ 300,000.

STATE: California

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1990, a Model 206B Jet Ranger helicopter crashed at the Rancho San Carlos ranch in Carmel Valley, Cal., resulting in the death of the helicopter passenger, Peter C. Stocker. The helicopter was designed and manufactured by Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. in 1975.

Shortly after takeoff, the pilot flew the helicopter into horizontally strung utility wires on the ranch, causing the main rotor blade to contact and sever the tail rotor driveshaft. After breaking through the wires, the pilot attempted to continue to fly the helicopter for about one-quarter mile. Ultimately, he made a crash landing on a smooth and open field on the ranch property. During the impact, the passenger was ejected from the helicopter. There was a dispute as to whether the passenger was struck on the head by the main rotor blade while in his seat before the helicopter made contact with the ground, or whether he was struck in the head by a portion of the main rotor blade as he exited during the crash sequence. There was also a dispute over whether the passenger was wearing a seatbelt. The pilot, who had a seatbelt on, sustained relatively minor injuries.

Suit was filed against the pilot and Bell Helicopter. Plaintiffs alleged that the pilot was negligent in executing an improper takeoff, failing to avoid the wires, and failing to equip the helicopter with a wire strike protection system. In February of 1980, the FAA authorized the installation of a wire strike protection system for the Model 206B helicopter. The pilot, who had owned the helicopter since 1984, was aware of the availability of a wire strike protection system, but had not purchased one.

Bell Helicopter was alleged to be liable based on the allegations that it (1) failed to incorporate a wire strike protection device; and (2) had a defective rotor system that allowed the main rotor blades to contact the tail rotor driveshaft during normal operating conditions. Plaintiffs alleged that Bell should have invented at least by 1975 a wire strike protection device, similar or identical to the device ultimately developed by another company in 1980. It was further alleged that Bell failed to properly advise owners of the availability of the device developed in 1980.

Plaintiffs contended that the rotor system was defectively designed since the main rotor blades could make contact with portions of the fuselage during normal operations. In particular, plaintiffs contended that the design was defective since it allowed the main rotor blade to contact the tail rotor driveshaft at or near the vicinity of the wires, and allowed the main rotor blade to contact the cockpit in flight and strike Mr. Stocker in the head just prior to the crash. Plaintiffs further contended that Bell should have developed and installed a device on the helicopter that would have prevented the main rotor blade from contacting the tail rotor driveshaft.

Bell Helicopter claimed that a wire protection system had not been invented or developed at the time it delivered the helicopter in 1975, and that the rotor system was not defectively designed in that the main rotor blade contact with the fuselage is not possible under normal operating conditions, that the main rotor blade struck the tail rotor driveshaft only as a result of the helicopter being temporarily restrained by the wires, that a device had not been invented or developed for application to the helicopter at the time of delivery in 1975 that could have prevented the main rotor blade from contacting the tail rotor driveshaft, that the main rotor blade did not strike the cockpit either in flight or during the crash sequence, that a portion of the main rotor blade hit Mr. Stocker in the head as he was exiting the helicopter during the crash sequence, that Bell properly notified its customers of the availability of the strike protection system, that the accident would not have been prevented even if the helicopter had been equipped with the wire strike protection system; and the Mr. Stocker's death would have been prevented if he had been wearing his seatbelt.

• Williams v. Reading Anthracite Company
• Stocker v. Bell Helicopter
• Singletary v. Milnor
• Anonymous v. Anonymous
• Tom v. General Motors Corp.

Recalls and Class Action Topics

• Boats and Boating Safety
• Consumer Products
• Environmental Products
• Foods Medicines Cosmetics
• Meat and Poultry Products
• Motor Vehicles Car Seats
• Product Recalls
• Recalls and Class Action Verdicts

Recalls and Class Action Videos

• Class Action Litigation
• Mass Torts
• Recalls and Class Actions

Recalls and Class Action Links

• Recalls and Class Action - U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Includes the most significant product actions of the last 60 days, based on the extent of distribution and the degree of health risk.