Loading
Aviation
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Aviation, Helicopter, Accident Reconstruction, Human Factors, Product Liability
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
New York State
Court:
Cadigan v. Liberty Helicopters, Inc., Index No. 152286/2018, concerned a March 11, 2018 doors-off aerial photography flight over New York City. Liberty Helicopters operated the Eurocopter AS350 B2 for NYONAIR LLC and FlyNYON LLC, collectively referred to as NYON, with Trevor Cadigan seated in the left-front seat opposite the pilot. A loop in Cadigan’s supplemental harness tether caught and activated a floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, stopping the engine. The pilot made an emergency landing on the East River, but the flotation devices did not inflate properly, and the helicopter tipped over, filled with water, and sank. The pilot escaped because he wore a standard helicopter harness, while Cadigan and the four other passengers, who wore supplemental harnesses, drowned.
Cadigan’s family brought wrongful-death claims against Liberty Helicopters and other parties involved in the flight, aircraft, restraint system, and flotation equipment. The litigation addressed New York law, a preflight waiver, the forum-selection clause, punitive damages, federal preemption, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk. The aviation issues addressed through expert disclosures included safety procedures, emergency-egress training, aircraft certification, airworthiness, regulations, economics, and other technical subjects. A New York appellate court affirmed the refusal to dismiss the claims against NYON, and the trial court later allowed several claims to proceed while dismissing the implied-assumption-of-risk defense. After a Manhattan jury awarded Cadigan’s family $116 million in 2024, the court approved a $90 million settlement in March 2025 that ended the defendants’ challenges and foreclosed further appeals.
Trevor Cadigan joined a doors-off aerial photography flight operated by Liberty Helicopters on behalf of NYON. During the flight, a loop in his supplemental harness tether caught and activated a floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, stopping the helicopter’s engine. The pilot made an emergency landing on the East River, but the flotation system did not inflate properly, and Cadigan and four other passengers drowned after the aircraft tipped over, filled with water, and sank.
Jerry Cadigan and Nancy Caton Cadigan filed a wrongful-death action as proposed administrators of their son’s estate. The original complaint named Liberty Helicopters, Inc.; NY On Air LLC; FlyNYON LLC; and pilot Richard Zemke Vance as defendants. Later court captions also included Meridian Consulting I Corporation, the registered owner; Airbus Helicopters entities; and Apical Industries, Inc., doing business as DART Aerospace. The litigation examined the restraint system, emergency egress, fuel shutoff lever, flotation equipment, flight operations, and the parties’ respective responsibility for the fatal outcome.
The New York Supreme Court, New York County, denied NYON’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on a forum-selection clause in Cadigan’s preflight waiver. NYON had participated in the litigation and extensive discovery for approximately three years before seeking enforcement of the clause. The court also denied the Cadigan family’s request for sanctions.
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the order refusing to dismiss the claims against NYON. It concluded that NYON had waived its forum-selection defense through its extensive participation in the litigation and that enforcing the clause at that stage would prejudice the plaintiffs. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of sanctions.
The trial court rejected NYON’s argument that New Jersey law governed the Cadigan family’s tort claims under the preflight waiver. Applying New York choice-of-law principles, the court found that the waiver did not contain language extending its chosen law to the parties’ entire legal relationship. The court therefore held that New York law governed the tort claims.
The court considered challenges to experts disclosed by the plaintiffs, NYON, Liberty, and DART. The order specifically discussed economics, safety procedures, egress training, aircraft certification, airworthiness, regulations, and underwater egress, while identifying several additional witnesses whose complete subjects were not stated. Arthur Lee Coffman was expected to address safety procedures and egress training, Rodney Doss was expected to discuss certification and airworthiness, and Robert Pitchford’s background involved underwater egress instruction. The court largely denied requests for exclusion or a Frye hearing, while requiring more detailed disclosures for several defense witnesses.
The court considered summary-judgment motions involving NYON, Liberty Helicopters, DART Aerospace, Airbus, and the Cadigan family. It allowed the punitive-damages claims against NYON and Liberty to proceed after concluding that the plaintiffs had submitted evidence that the companies knew the supplemental harnesses presented a drowning risk and that the supplied cutters could be ineffective during an emergency. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for non-economic damages but permitted the disputed pecuniary-damages claims to proceed to the jury. It also dismissed the implied-assumption-of-risk defense, while the defendants effectively withdrew their comparative-fault defense based on Cadigan’s alcohol consumption during oral argument.
Following the trial, a Manhattan jury awarded $116 million to Cadigan’s family. The defendants later took steps to challenge the award. Those challenges created the possibility of continued litigation and appellate review.
A Manhattan judge approved the parties’ $90 million settlement. Under the agreement, Cadigan’s family accepted less than the $116 million jury award in exchange for ending the defendants’ challenges and foreclosing further appeals. The settlement concluded the wrongful-death litigation without additional post-trial or appellate proceedings.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
Case Name:
Cadigan v. Liberty Helicopters, Inc.
A harness tether activated the helicopter’s fuel shutoff lever during a 2018 doors-off flight over New York City.
After the East River landing, the flotation system failed, and all five passengers drowned.
The litigation addressed restraints, emergency egress, flotation equipment, governing law, and federal preemption.
The court allowed punitive-damages claims to proceed and dismissed the implied-assumption-of-risk defense.
A $90 million settlement replaced the 2024 jury’s $116 million verdict and ended further appeals.
Aviation Accidents
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Occupant Restraints
Passenger Safety
Pilot Training
Emergency Evacuations
Safety Compliance
Helicopter Crash
3D Animation
Cadigan v. Liberty Helicopters, Inc., Index No. 152286/2018, concerned a March 11, 2018 doors-off aerial photography flight over New York City. Liberty Helicopters operated the Eurocopter AS350 B2 for NYONAIR LLC and FlyNYON LLC, collectively referred to as NYON, with Trevor Cadigan seated in the left-front seat opposite the pilot. A loop in Cadigan’s supplemental harness tether caught and activated a floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, stopping the engine. The pilot made an emergency landing on the East River, but the flotation devices did not inflate properly, and the helicopter tipped over, filled with water, and sank. The pilot escaped because he wore a standard helicopter harness, while Cadigan and the four other passengers, who wore supplemental harnesses, drowned.
Cadigan’s family brought wrongful-death claims against Liberty Helicopters and other parties involved in the flight, aircraft, restraint system, and flotation equipment. The litigation addressed New York law, a preflight waiver, the forum-selection clause, punitive damages, federal preemption, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk. The aviation issues addressed through expert disclosures included safety procedures, emergency-egress training, aircraft certification, airworthiness, regulations, economics, and other technical subjects. A New York appellate court affirmed the refusal to dismiss the claims against NYON, and the trial court later allowed several claims to proceed while dismissing the implied-assumption-of-risk defense. After a Manhattan jury awarded Cadigan’s family $116 million in 2024, the court approved a $90 million settlement in March 2025 that ended the defendants’ challenges and foreclosed further appeals.
Trevor Cadigan joined a doors-off aerial photography flight operated by Liberty Helicopters on behalf of NYON. During the flight, a loop in his supplemental harness tether caught and activated a floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, stopping the helicopter’s engine. The pilot made an emergency landing on the East River, but the flotation system did not inflate properly, and Cadigan and four other passengers drowned after the aircraft tipped over, filled with water, and sank.
Jerry Cadigan and Nancy Caton Cadigan filed a wrongful-death action as proposed administrators of their son’s estate. The original complaint named Liberty Helicopters, Inc.; NY On Air LLC; FlyNYON LLC; and pilot Richard Zemke Vance as defendants. Later court captions also included Meridian Consulting I Corporation, the registered owner; Airbus Helicopters entities; and Apical Industries, Inc., doing business as DART Aerospace. The litigation examined the restraint system, emergency egress, fuel shutoff lever, flotation equipment, flight operations, and the parties’ respective responsibility for the fatal outcome.
The New York Supreme Court, New York County, denied NYON’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on a forum-selection clause in Cadigan’s preflight waiver. NYON had participated in the litigation and extensive discovery for approximately three years before seeking enforcement of the clause. The court also denied the Cadigan family’s request for sanctions.
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the order refusing to dismiss the claims against NYON. It concluded that NYON had waived its forum-selection defense through its extensive participation in the litigation and that enforcing the clause at that stage would prejudice the plaintiffs. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of sanctions.
The trial court rejected NYON’s argument that New Jersey law governed the Cadigan family’s tort claims under the preflight waiver. Applying New York choice-of-law principles, the court found that the waiver did not contain language extending its chosen law to the parties’ entire legal relationship. The court therefore held that New York law governed the tort claims.
The court considered challenges to experts disclosed by the plaintiffs, NYON, Liberty, and DART. The order specifically discussed economics, safety procedures, egress training, aircraft certification, airworthiness, regulations, and underwater egress, while identifying several additional witnesses whose complete subjects were not stated. Arthur Lee Coffman was expected to address safety procedures and egress training, Rodney Doss was expected to discuss certification and airworthiness, and Robert Pitchford’s background involved underwater egress instruction. The court largely denied requests for exclusion or a Frye hearing, while requiring more detailed disclosures for several defense witnesses.
The court considered summary-judgment motions involving NYON, Liberty Helicopters, DART Aerospace, Airbus, and the Cadigan family. It allowed the punitive-damages claims against NYON and Liberty to proceed after concluding that the plaintiffs had submitted evidence that the companies knew the supplemental harnesses presented a drowning risk and that the supplied cutters could be ineffective during an emergency. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for non-economic damages but permitted the disputed pecuniary-damages claims to proceed to the jury. It also dismissed the implied-assumption-of-risk defense, while the defendants effectively withdrew their comparative-fault defense based on Cadigan’s alcohol consumption during oral argument.
Following the trial, a Manhattan jury awarded $116 million to Cadigan’s family. The defendants later took steps to challenge the award. Those challenges created the possibility of continued litigation and appellate review.
A Manhattan judge approved the parties’ $90 million settlement. Under the agreement, Cadigan’s family accepted less than the $116 million jury award in exchange for ending the defendants’ challenges and foreclosing further appeals. The settlement concluded the wrongful-death litigation without additional post-trial or appellate proceedings.
Safety Procedures and Emergency-Egress Experts — Plaintiffs’ Side
Arthur Lee Coffman and Robert Pitchford were publicly disclosed as plaintiff experts. Coffman was expected to address the adequacy of Liberty’s and NYON’s safety procedures and egress training. The court noted Pitchford’s substantial experience as an underwater-egress instructor and declined to exclude the anticipated evidence from either witness or require a Frye hearing.
Aircraft Certification, Airworthiness, and Regulatory Expert — Plaintiffs’ Side
Rodney Doss was publicly disclosed as a plaintiff expert. He was expected to address aircraft certification, airworthiness, and regulations. The court determined that NYON’s objections concerned his methodology and factual foundation, which could be examined through cross-examination rather than exclusion or a Frye hearing.
Aviation Expert Witness
In comparable helicopter cases, an aviation expert witness may evaluate flight operations, aircraft maintenance, pilot conduct, operating procedures, and regulatory compliance. The analysis may include flight records, maintenance documentation, safety procedures, and accepted industry practices.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Accident reconstruction analysis may examine how a helicopter incident unfolded using physical evidence, photographs, video, aircraft records, witness accounts, and technical data. In a water-landing case, the analysis may address engine-power loss, emergency descent, impact sequence, aircraft tipping, and flotation-equipment performance.
Raise Contractual Defenses Early
NYON’s extensive participation in discovery before seeking enforcement of the forum-selection clause resulted in waiver of that defense. Attorneys should identify and preserve contractual venue defenses at the beginning of litigation. Delayed enforcement may cause prejudice and prevent dismissal based on the selected forum.
Draft Choice-of-Law Clauses with Precise Scope
The court held that the waiver’s choice-of-law provision did not extend to the Cadigan family’s tort claims. Contract language selecting a state’s law may not govern every dispute unless it clearly addresses the parties’ broader legal relationship. Counsel should evaluate whether a clause covers only the agreement or also related tort claims.
Preserve Internal Aviation Safety Evidence
Recorded safety discussions concerning the supplemental harnesses, emergency egress, and supplied cutters affected the court’s treatment of punitive damages. Internal training materials, operational communications, flight procedures, and equipment evaluations may bear directly on notice and knowledge. Early preservation efforts should cover recordings, videos, emails, manuals, and safety-meeting records.
Evaluate Federal Preemption on a Claim-Specific Basis
DART and Airbus argued that federal law preempted state product-liability claims involving the flotation equipment and fuel shutoff lever. The court rejected those arguments, concluding that the state-law claims did not sufficiently interfere with the federal regulatory framework. Attorneys should examine the relationship between federal aircraft requirements, regulatory approvals, and each asserted state-law duty rather than treating federal certification as an automatic bar to liability.
Assess Post-Trial Risk When Negotiating Final Resolution
After the jury returned its verdict, the defendants took steps to challenge the result. The court-approved settlement ended those challenges and foreclosed appeals. Attorneys evaluating resolution after trial should weigh the certainty of settlement against the cost, delay, and uncertainty of continued post-trial and appellate proceedings.
Cadigan v. Liberty Helicopters, Inc. proceeded through disputes over the forum-selection clause, governing law, expert disclosures, federal preemption, punitive damages, assumption of risk, and comparative negligence before reaching trial. After the jury returned its verdict, the defendants took steps to challenge the result. A court-approved settlement ended those challenges, foreclosed appeals, and resolved the litigation. The final resolution ended an aviation wrongful-death action involving passenger restraints, the floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, emergency flotation equipment, and egress procedures.
Why did New York law govern the Cadigan family’s tort claims?
Cadigan’s preflight waiver selected New Jersey law, but the court found that the provision did not expressly extend to related tort claims. Applying New York choice-of-law principles, the court held that New York law governed those claims.
Why did the court reject NYON’s forum-selection defense?
NYON participated in the New York litigation and extensive discovery for approximately three years before seeking enforcement of the forum-selection clause. The Appellate Division concluded that NYON had waived the defense and that enforcement at that stage would prejudice the plaintiffs.
Why did the punitive-damages claims against NYON and Liberty proceed?
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had submitted sufficient evidence to permit the punitive-damages claims against NYON and Liberty to proceed. The evidence included recorded safety discussions concerning the drowning risk presented by the supplemental harnesses and the potential ineffectiveness of the supplied cutting tools during an emergency.
Why was the implied-assumption-of-risk defense dismissed?
The defendants argued that Cadigan accepted the ordinary risks of flying over water when he signed the waiver and joined the flight. The court dismissed the defense because he drowned following an emergency landing, a circumstance in which implied assumption of risk did not apply.
Which aviation equipment issues did the litigation address?
The case examined the supplemental harness and tether system, the floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, emergency cutters, and the helicopter’s flotation equipment. These issues concerned the engine shutdown, passenger egress, the emergency water landing, and the aircraft tipping over and sinking.
Safety Procedures and Emergency-Egress Experts — Plaintiffs’ Side
Arthur Lee Coffman and Robert Pitchford were publicly disclosed as plaintiff experts. Coffman was expected to address the adequacy of Liberty’s and NYON’s safety procedures and egress training. The court noted Pitchford’s substantial experience as an underwater-egress instructor and declined to exclude the anticipated evidence from either witness or require a Frye hearing.
Aircraft Certification, Airworthiness, and Regulatory Expert — Plaintiffs’ Side
Rodney Doss was publicly disclosed as a plaintiff expert. He was expected to address aircraft certification, airworthiness, and regulations. The court determined that NYON’s objections concerned his methodology and factual foundation, which could be examined through cross-examination rather than exclusion or a Frye hearing.
Aviation Expert Witness
In comparable helicopter cases, an aviation expert witness may evaluate flight operations, aircraft maintenance, pilot conduct, operating procedures, and regulatory compliance. The analysis may include flight records, maintenance documentation, safety procedures, and accepted industry practices.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Accident reconstruction analysis may examine how a helicopter incident unfolded using physical evidence, photographs, video, aircraft records, witness accounts, and technical data. In a water-landing case, the analysis may address engine-power loss, emergency descent, impact sequence, aircraft tipping, and flotation-equipment performance.
Raise Contractual Defenses Early
NYON’s extensive participation in discovery before seeking enforcement of the forum-selection clause resulted in waiver of that defense. Attorneys should identify and preserve contractual venue defenses at the beginning of litigation. Delayed enforcement may cause prejudice and prevent dismissal based on the selected forum.
Draft Choice-of-Law Clauses with Precise Scope
The court held that the waiver’s choice-of-law provision did not extend to the Cadigan family’s tort claims. Contract language selecting a state’s law may not govern every dispute unless it clearly addresses the parties’ broader legal relationship. Counsel should evaluate whether a clause covers only the agreement or also related tort claims.
Preserve Internal Aviation Safety Evidence
Recorded safety discussions concerning the supplemental harnesses, emergency egress, and supplied cutters affected the court’s treatment of punitive damages. Internal training materials, operational communications, flight procedures, and equipment evaluations may bear directly on notice and knowledge. Early preservation efforts should cover recordings, videos, emails, manuals, and safety-meeting records.
Evaluate Federal Preemption on a Claim-Specific Basis
DART and Airbus argued that federal law preempted state product-liability claims involving the flotation equipment and fuel shutoff lever. The court rejected those arguments, concluding that the state-law claims did not sufficiently interfere with the federal regulatory framework. Attorneys should examine the relationship between federal aircraft requirements, regulatory approvals, and each asserted state-law duty rather than treating federal certification as an automatic bar to liability.
Assess Post-Trial Risk When Negotiating Final Resolution
After the jury returned its verdict, the defendants took steps to challenge the result. The court-approved settlement ended those challenges and foreclosed appeals. Attorneys evaluating resolution after trial should weigh the certainty of settlement against the cost, delay, and uncertainty of continued post-trial and appellate proceedings.
Cadigan v. Liberty Helicopters, Inc. proceeded through disputes over the forum-selection clause, governing law, expert disclosures, federal preemption, punitive damages, assumption of risk, and comparative negligence before reaching trial. After the jury returned its verdict, the defendants took steps to challenge the result. A court-approved settlement ended those challenges, foreclosed appeals, and resolved the litigation. The final resolution ended an aviation wrongful-death action involving passenger restraints, the floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, emergency flotation equipment, and egress procedures.
Why did New York law govern the Cadigan family’s tort claims?
Cadigan’s preflight waiver selected New Jersey law, but the court found that the provision did not expressly extend to related tort claims. Applying New York choice-of-law principles, the court held that New York law governed those claims.
Why did the court reject NYON’s forum-selection defense?
NYON participated in the New York litigation and extensive discovery for approximately three years before seeking enforcement of the forum-selection clause. The Appellate Division concluded that NYON had waived the defense and that enforcement at that stage would prejudice the plaintiffs.
Why did the punitive-damages claims against NYON and Liberty proceed?
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had submitted sufficient evidence to permit the punitive-damages claims against NYON and Liberty to proceed. The evidence included recorded safety discussions concerning the drowning risk presented by the supplemental harnesses and the potential ineffectiveness of the supplied cutting tools during an emergency.
Why was the implied-assumption-of-risk defense dismissed?
The defendants argued that Cadigan accepted the ordinary risks of flying over water when he signed the waiver and joined the flight. The court dismissed the defense because he drowned following an emergency landing, a circumstance in which implied assumption of risk did not apply.
Which aviation equipment issues did the litigation address?
The case examined the supplemental harness and tether system, the floor-mounted fuel shutoff lever, emergency cutters, and the helicopter’s flotation equipment. These issues concerned the engine shutdown, passenger egress, the emergency water landing, and the aircraft tipping over and sinking.
How did the $90 million settlement affect the $116 million verdict?
After the Manhattan jury returned its $116 million award in 2024, the defendants took steps to challenge it. The court-approved $90 million settlement ended those challenges, foreclosed appeals, and brought the wrongful-death litigation to a final resolution.
Aviation Accidents
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Occupant Restraints
Passenger Safety
Pilot Training
Emergency Evacuations
Safety Compliance
Helicopter Crash
3D Animation
Aviation, +4
Aviation
Aviation, +4
Aviation
How did the $90 million settlement affect the $116 million verdict?
After the Manhattan jury returned its $116 million award in 2024, the defendants took steps to challenge it. The court-approved $90 million settlement ended those challenges, foreclosed appeals, and brought the wrongful-death litigation to a final resolution.