Forsyth et al. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. et al., 2000 BCSC 642

• Judge: Blair, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2000 BCSC 642;[2000] B.C.T.C. 286 (SC)

Forsyth v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., [2000] B.C.T.C. 286 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.056

John Forsyth, Kerry Kokoszka, Wolfgang Schlienz and Tundra Helicopters Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and United Technologies Corp. (defendants) and Rotech Industries Inc. (third party)

(C975456; 2000 BCSC 642)

Indexed As: Forsyth et al. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Blair, J.

April 19, 2000.

Summary:

Tundra Helicopters Ltd. owned a helicopter which it used in logging operations. The plaintiffs, Forsyth, Kokoszka and Schlienz, Tundra employees, were injured when the helicopter was involved in an accident. The accident occurred when a spindle failed approximately 200 feet above the ground resulting in a semi-controlled landing destroying the helicopter and injuring the plaintiffs. The spindle was one of four spindles which were integral parts of the helicopter's tail-rotor assembly, connecting the four tail-rotor blades with the tail-rotor hub. The individual plaintiffs sued Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (the manufacturer) for damages for personal injuries and Tundra sued for damages for loss of its helicopter. The plaintiffs alleged that Sikorsky improperly manufactured the failed spindle and although aware of the spindle's defects, neglected to warn users of the defects. Sikorsky claimed that the spindle failure was attributable to the plaintiffs' over-stressing the helicopter by regularly lifting excessively heavy loads. Sikorsky also alleged that the third party, Rotech Industries Inc., negligently overhauled the tail-rotor hub assembly several months before the accident.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that the manufacturer Sikorsky was 50% responsible for the accident for the defective manufacture of the spindle and while being aware of the risk in the 1960s, failed in its duty to warn. Tundra was 30% responsible for knowingly allowing the helicopter to be flown outside the flight envelope specified in the flight manual. Also two of the pilots were found to be each 10% responsible for operating the helicopter at weight beyond that permitted by the flight manual. The third party action against Rotech was dismissed. The court assessed damages.

Damage Awards - Topic 59

Injury and death - Body injuries - Pelvis and pubic bones (incl. hip and urinary tract) - See paragraphs 120 to 132.

Damage Awards - Topic 68

Injury and death - Body injuries - Back - Vertebral fracture or displacement - See paragraphs 140 to 148 and 162 to 168.

Damages - Topic 1549

General damages - General damages for personal injury - Impairment of earning capacity - See paragraphs 111 to 118.

Damages - Topic 1836

Torts affecting goods - Damage to goods - Measure of damages - See paragraphs 94 to 110.

Damages - Topic 1837

Torts affecting goods - Damage to goods - Loss of profits - See paragraphs 104 to 110.

Damages - Topic 1843

Torts affecting goods - Damage to goods - Replacement cost (incl. taxes) - See paragraphs 94 to 103.

Torts - Topic 4303

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Misuse - See paragraphs 55 to 92.

Torts - Topic 4326

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manufacturers - Standard of care - See paragraphs 13 to 92.

Torts - Topic 4332

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manufacturers - Defective design or manufacture - See paragraphs 13 to 92.

Torts - Topic 4335

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manufacturers - Duty to warn users respecting dangers - See paragraphs 49 to 54.

Torts - Topic 4340

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manufacturers - Damages - Measure of - See paragraphs 93 to .

Cases Noticed:

Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals, [1972] S.C.R. 569, refd to. [para. 13].

Farro v. Nutone Electrical Ltd. (1990), 40 O.A.C. 233; 72 O.R.(2d) 637 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Nantais v. Teletronics Proprietary (Canada) Ltd. (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 331 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Edmonton Flying Club et al. v. Northward Aviation Ltd. et al. (1979), 17 A.R. 507 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works Ltd., [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [para. 49].

Nicholson et al. v. Deere (John) Ltd. et al. (1986), 34 D.L.R.(4th) 542 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1989), 57 D.L.R.(4th) 639 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634; 190 N.R. 241; 67 B.C.A.C. 1; 111 W.A.C. 1; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 51].

Mitrunen v. Anthes Equipment Ltd. (1985), 17 D.L.R.(4th) 567 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Nan v. Black Pine Manufacturing Ltd. (1991), 80 D.L.R.(4th) 153 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Can-Arc Helicopters Ltd. v. Textron Inc. (1991), 63 B.C.L.R.(2d) 207 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 104].

Morris v. Rose Estate (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 263; 123 W.A.C. 263; 23 B.C.L.R.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

Pallos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1995), 53 B.C.A.C. 310; 87 W.A.C. 310; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Statutes Noticed:

Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492, sect. 10(6) [para. 112]; sect. 10(1)(a) [para. 113].

Counsel:

J.J. Camp, Q.C., Joe Fiorante and Sharon Matthews, for the plaintiff;

R.J. Randall Hordo and Dan Fetterley, for the defendant;

R. Glen Nicholson, for the third party.

This case was heard on November 22-26, 30, December 1-3, 6-10 and 13-17, 1999, and January 4-7, 10-14, 17, 19-21 and 24-26, 2000, before Blair, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who filed the following decision on April 19, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.