New York — In a staggering judgment, a Manhattan jury awarded $116 million to a grieving family for the tragic death of Trevor Cadigan, one of five passengers killed when a “doors-off” helicopter plunged into the East River in March 2018. The 26-year-old journalist was on board the flight designed for aerial photography which ended fatally due to a series of safety failures.
The verdict marks a profound statement about the accountability of companies involved in the helicopter’s operation and crash. According to the family’s attorney, Gary C. Robb, the harness system used during the flight, which was intended for construction sites rather than aviation, meant that Cadigan and others had virtually no chance of escaping once the aircraft began to submerge.
The helicopter, operated by Liberty Helicopters and arranged by FlyNYON, was in the midst of a popular aerial photography experience when the accident occurred. Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) revealed that a passenger accidentally triggered a fuel shutoff switch, causing the engine to stop and the helicopter to quickly descend into the chilly waters of the East River.
The pilot managed to escape as he was equipped with a standard seatbelt; however, the passengers, strapped in specialized harnesses, struggled unsuccessfully to free themselves. The harrowing moments resulted in the deaths of Cadigan, along with Brian McDaniel, Carla Vallejos Blanco, Tristan Hill, and Daniel Thompson.
The jury attributed 42% of the responsibility for the crash to FlyNYON, 38% to Liberty Helicopters, and the remaining 20% to Dart Aerospace for a malfunctioning flotation device that failed to keep the helicopter upright in the water. These decisions followed contentious discussions about the companies’ efforts to circumvent more stringent safety regulations typically required for tourist flights.
In defense, FlyNYON had previously claimed their operations fell under categories like newsgathering, which allowed for less rigorous safety standards, a loophole they exploited by avoiding terms like “air tour” in their promotions. Meanwhile, Dart Aerospace debated the proper deployment of their flotation devices by the pilot, although FlyNYON also pointed blame towards the overall design of the helicopter.
This tragic incident prompted federal aviation authorities to temporarily suspend doors-off helicopter flights if they involved similar restraints. The regulations were later amended to allow these flights with the provision that restraints could be quickly released with a single action, aiming to enhance passenger safety.
Robb expressed that the lawsuit was not just about seeking justice but also aimed to challenge the legality of doors-off flights, which he labeled as inherently dangerous. This legal battle, concluding in the shadow of the family’s recent personal loss with the passing of Cadigan’s father, Jerry, signifies a critical push for revamped safety protocols in unconventional aviation experiences.
The impact of this case resonates far beyond the immediate legal implications; it underscores the dire need for transparent and stringent safety measures in adventure tourism and passenger aviation. This verdict might catalyze systemic changes, ensuring that thrill-seekers do not have to pay with their lives. As the dust settles on this landmark judgment, questions linger about the adequacy of current regulations and the moral obligations of those who skirt them for profit.