You can't fly that, you might kill yourself

[MikeW]

Whilst negotiating the purchase of some copies of original Sopwith triplane drawings from the RAF Museum, they asked me to sign a disclaimer to the effect that I would not use the drawings to construct a full size replica aircraft, nor that I would provide the information to someone else so that
they could build a replica.

When I enquired why, I was told that British Aerospace sold a set of Camel drawings in the 1970's to a full sized aircraft constructor. Naturally enough, he killed himself in it. His relatives sued British Aerospace and won
substantial damages.

Does anyone know anything of this outrageous story?

Dick King built the Sopwith Pup he flew for many years with drawings purchased from the factory (then known as Hawker-Siddley, IIRC) in the early '60s.

In the litgious world of today, the fact that you had to sign a waiver does not surprise me in the least. :

[Dan_San_Abbott]

MikeW:
That does not surprise me a bit, I put on my drawings a disclaimer that the drawings are not to be used for construction of full size aircraft for flight, the drawings are for building scale model aircraft for display only.
Bluer skies ahead,
Dan-San

[Barrett]

This libability nitwittery is so far out of control that it'll never be reined in. Am told reliably that c. 40% of the cost of a lightplane these days is lawyer prevention: years ago the basic DOOR of a Bonanza cost $400; heaven knows what it is today.
I can just about conceive of a situation in which Mr. Homebuilder morts hisself in a replica/reproduction Tripehound and the decedent's survivors sue the descendants of Sir Tom Sopwith.
"The depth of human folly is unplumbed."

[Michael]

Unfortunately a judge (English or Canadian - I no longer remember which) stated "The categories of negligence are never closed". M'Lud I humbly submit that it is long passed the time that they should have been.

I'm a Cub leader, and you should see the nonsense we have to go through before we can take the little darlings outside.

it really is too bad that such mishaps destroy the opportunities to build replica's of such fabulous aircraft. It's been my experience that it only takes one or two such incidents to ruin it for everyone else. what a shame...

[EdStevens]

I'm working from memory here, but I did indeed hear the story. Because of the successful suit, it has become almost impossible to obtain plans for that purpose for any aircraft firm which has a successor--Sopwith to Hawker-Siddeley for instance. My recollection is also that the Camel crashed entirely because of the error of the pilot, not because of any flaw in the plans per se. One would think (hope?) that it would be obvious that anyone building a reproduction Great War aircraft assumes considerable risk, including loss of life. It's suprising to me that the courts--where what is "reasonable" is so important--didn't see it that way. I assume they thought it was reasonable that the provider of the plans should have anticipated the loss of the pilot's life and therefore not provided the plans if they knew a reproduction aircraft was the intent...