Sacramento General Aviation Accident Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm - (916) 233-7346

General aviation accounts for the majority of aviation accidents in Sacramento County. Unlike commercial airline crashes, general aviation accidents — private aircraft, flight training, agricultural flying, corporate aviation — rarely make national news. They happen at Sacramento Executive Airport, at rural airstrips in the Sacramento Valley, in the airspace over the American River corridor, and on the approach corridors around Sacramento International. Attorney Michael Rehm represents pilots, passengers, bystanders, and the families of those killed in general aviation accidents throughout Sacramento County.

Cases are handled on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery.

The Standard of Care for General Aviation

A pilot operating a private aircraft under FAA Part 91 is held to the standard of a reasonably careful pilot with equivalent training, certification, and experience — ordinary negligence, not the heightened common carrier standard that applies to airlines and charter operators. The Federal Aviation Regulations set the baseline. A pilot who violates an applicable FAR has violated a regulation specifically designed to prevent aviation accidents, and California Evidence Code section 669 establishes a rebuttable presumption of negligence from that violation.

The most commonly violated FARs in Sacramento-area general aviation accidents:

14 C.F.R. § 91.103 — Preflight action. Every pilot in command must become familiar with all available information concerning a flight before departure: weather, fuel requirements, NOTAMs, runway lengths, and aircraft performance data.
14 C.F.R. § 91.13 — Careless or reckless operation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
14 C.F.R. § 91.155 — Basic VFR weather minimums. A VFR-only pilot who departs into instrument meteorological conditions has violated the regulation that exists specifically to prevent controlled flight into terrain.
14 C.F.R. § 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes. No person may operate an aircraft over a congested area below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet, or elsewhere below 500 feet above the surface.

Pilot Certification, Currency, and Medical Certificates

A pilot's certificate, rating, and currency are relevant to negligence analysis. Flying outside the privileges of a certificate — a private pilot carrying passengers for compensation, a VFR-only pilot flying IFR without an instrument rating, a student pilot flying solo without an endorsement — violates the FAR that defines the certificate privileges and establishes negligence per se. Currency requirements under 14 C.F.R. Part 61 exist specifically to ensure pilots maintain the proficiency needed to safely conduct the proposed flight.

Medical certificate violations are a separate category. A pilot who flies while knowing of a disqualifying medical condition — uncontrolled hypertension, a recent cardiac event, use of a disqualifying medication — has violated 14 C.F.R. § 61.23 and has knowingly operated an aircraft in a manner that creates a foreseeable risk of incapacitation.

Aircraft Owner Liability

California Public Utilities Code section 21404 imposes liability on the owner of an aircraft for injury or damage caused by its operation with the owner's permission. This is the aircraft analog to Vehicle Code section 17150. An owner who lends an aircraft to a friend, rents it through a flight club, or makes it available through an FBO carries liability for harm the permitted operation causes to third parties. The owner's liability under section 21404 is separate from negligent entrustment — both theories may apply simultaneously.

Flight Schools and Instructor Liability

Sacramento County hosts multiple active flight training operations at Sacramento Executive Airport. A flight instructor aboard a training aircraft has the ability and duty to take the controls at any point safety requires it. An instructor who fails to intervene when a student's inputs are leading to an unsafe condition has breached the duty of care. Flight schools face independent liability for: negligent hiring of instructors; failure to maintain training aircraft in airworthy condition; inadequate syllabus or ground training; and negligent checkout procedures that allow a renter to fly an aircraft they are not qualified to operate.

GARA: The 18-Year Manufacturer Repose Period

The general aviation fleet in Sacramento County includes a large number of older aircraft — Cessna 172s, Piper Cherokees, Beechcraft Bonanzas, and similar aircraft manufactured decades ago. The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 40101 note) bars product liability claims against manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and components that have been in service for more than 18 years, unless a specific statutory exception applies. The four exceptions: new replacement parts; willful misconduct by the manufacturer; FAA misrepresentation; and involuntary passengers. Whether any exception applies requires a detailed review of the maintenance records, the component at issue, and the manufacturer's FAA certification history.

Res Ipsa Loquitur in General Aviation Cases

In some general aviation accidents the direct cause is unrecoverable from the wreckage. California permits a res ipsa loquitur theory where: (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence; (2) it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident. Newing v. Cheatham (1975) 15 Cal.3d 351 extended res ipsa loquitur to aviation accidents involving light aircraft, holding that a plane crash does not ordinarily occur without negligence even where the specific cause is unknown.

Midair Collisions and ATC Negligence

Midair collisions in the Sacramento area generate claims against multiple defendants: the pilots of both aircraft, the aircraft owners, and — where air traffic control contributed — the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)). An administrative claim must be filed with the FAA within two years of the date the claim accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The FTCA claim proceeds in the Eastern District of California; state law claims against the pilots and owners proceed in Sacramento County Superior Court.

Damages

California general aviation accident claims permit recovery of past and future medical expenses, lost earnings and impaired earning capacity, and noneconomic damages for pain and suffering. There is no statutory cap on noneconomic damages in general aviation accident cases. Under Civil Code § 1431.2 (Proposition 51), noneconomic damages are several only. Punitive damages are available under Civil Code section 3294 where conduct constitutes malice, oppression, or fraud.

Fatal accidents are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 (wrongful death) and section 377.30 (survival). For deaths occurring January 1, 2022 through January 1, 2026, CCP section 377.34 as amended by SB 447 permits recovery of pre-death pain and suffering in survival actions. That window is closed for deaths on or after January 1, 2026. The statute of limitations is two years under CCP section 335.1.

Filing in Sacramento County

General aviation accident cases are filed in Sacramento County Superior Court at the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse, 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Cases involving federal defendants are filed in the Eastern District of California at 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Cases involving the City of Sacramento as airport operator require a government claim filed with the City Clerk within six months under Government Code section 912.2 before any lawsuit can be filed.

Attorney Michael Rehm represents general aviation accident victims throughout Sacramento County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (916) 233-7346 to arrange a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.