Some things don’t have to be “guaranteed”.
Unless the person is an idiot, they EXPECT the plane to have no issues.
Did the people who died in those Toyota cars when the engines just DIED on the road have a GUARANTEE that the engine wouldn’t just stop for NO REASON?
No, you know they didn’t.
Too many here surpass conservative and go straight into donkey’s behind territory.
You arrived before I got there.
The general rule is fault, not strict liability like you advocate:
“The modern trend followed by a majority of states is to impose liability only upon a showing of negligence by *586 either the aircraft owner or operator.” ...”Moreover, a number of courts have expressly disavowed the notion that aviation is an “ultrahazardous activity” requiring special rules of liability.” “The Uniform Aeronautic Act, adopted in time by twenty-three states, imposed absolute liability on the owner, as well as the operator or lessee, of every aircraft for any damage to person or property caused by its operation provided there was no contributory negligence on the part of him who was thus harmed. With the passage of time, however, this view came to be modified, and the trend of decisions established it to be the general rule that, properly handled by a competent pilot exercising reasonable care, an airplane is not an inherently dangerous instrument, so that in the absence of statute the ordinary rules of negligence control, and the owner (or operator) of an *587 airship is only liable for injury inflicted upon another when such damage is caused by a defect in the plane or its negligent operation. “
Crosby v. Cox Aircraft 746 P.2d 1198, (1987)