Gust Lock Case Summary

The harm that was suffered by the plaintiffs “could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable,” in that if the gust lock had been as Gulfstream asserted and prevented the throttles of the airplane from being advanced from beyond a low setting, the airplane would not have reached the speed that it did and the harm that the plaintiffs suffered could have been avoided. In this case, the gust lock mechanism allowed the pilots involved in the crash to advance the speed of the airplane beyond low speeds to reach high speeds without the ability to leave the ground. If the gust lock had worked as Gulfstream stated it did, the pilots would not have been able to achieve such speed and the crash could have been prevented and likely would have been able to abort the flight or turn off the gust lock. Although, expert testimony may be needed about exactly what could have happened if the pilots would only have been able to achieve a low speed with a gust lock that kept the airplane to a low speed if the gust lock was on,
While the probability of risk is low with warnings and instructions for the gust lock and airplane checklist, the magnitude of harm is great from the injuries that can result. Furthermore, the proposed alternative design decreases the foreseeable harm caused by the defective gust lock without impacting the utility of the airplane. In addition, using a risk utility balancing with room for expert opinions to assist the triers of fact creates an administrable and understandable standard and evidence for non-expert triers of fact. Therefore, based on the evidence and the restatement, there is a defect with the gust lock and there is a reasonable alternative design in redesigning the gust locks to prevent pilots from advancing the throttles of the airplane beyond low levels when the gust lock is still