Key Takeaways
- The 1961 Cessna 185, historically significant as the first of its type in New Zealand, was destroyed by a hangar fire during routine maintenance in May 2021.
- Jason Deer, the owner, sued South Pacific Avionics Ltd (SPAL) for negligence, claiming the firm’s employee, Ryan Ryder, improperly connected a ground‑power unit while fuel‑system work was underway.
- SPAL denied negligence but accepted a general duty of care; it also filed contributory and third‑party claims against Deer and Ferguson Aero Ltd.
- Judge Kevin Kelly of the Nelson District Court dismissed Deer’s negligence claim, finding insufficient evidence that Ryder acted negligently.
- Consequently, SPAL’s contributory claim against Deer and its third‑party claim against Ferguson and his company were also dismissed.
- Deer had already received the insured value of the aircraft; his insurer may seek reimbursement from a third party.
- The judgment highlighted conflicting testimonies about whether Ryder obtained verbal confirmation before plugging in the GPU and characterized Ferguson’s explanation as “hindsight reasoning.”
- The case underscores the difficulty of proving negligence in aviation‑maintenance incidents where multiple parties perform simultaneous tasks.
- Costs were left for the parties to agree upon, with SPAL entitled to recover costs having successfully defended the claim.
Background of the Aircraft
The Cessna 185 involved in the incident was recorded as the 17th of its model built worldwide and the first Cessna 185 introduced to New Zealand in 1961. Over its service life the aircraft performed a variety of roles: initially transporting passengers and newspapers from Nelson to the West Coast, later serving as an air ambulance, then supporting parachute operations and aerial spraying. Jason Deer of Wakefield, near Nelson, acquired the plane in 2015 and maintained it for personal and occasional commercial use. By 2021 the aircraft was valued at approximately $315,000, a figure that formed the basis of Deer’s later negligence claim against the maintenance provider.
Events Leading to the Fire
On 18 May 2021 the Cessna 185 was flown to Malibu Park Airfield near Wakefield for routine maintenance. After Deer had stripped the aircraft down, he contacted Ryan Ryder of South Pacific Avionics Ltd (SPAL) to conduct a two‑yearly avionics inspection and install a piece of electronic equipment. Ryder arrived that afternoon and began setting up a ground‑power unit (GPU) while Ferguson, an independent aviation engineer working for Ferguson Aero Ltd, was occupied in the front engine bay, capping a fuel line. Shortly after the GPU was plugged in, a spark ignited fuel vapour in the vicinity of Ferguson’s work area, engulfing him in flames and triggering a rapid fire that spread throughout the hangar.
Immediate Response and Aftermath
Deer, who was nearby, managed to push the burning aircraft out of the hangar to protect the building and a second aircraft housed inside. He then called emergency services and joined others in attempting to extinguish the blaze, but the fire continued to reignite. By the time fire services arrived, only a burning tyre remained of the Cessna 185. The Waimea Weekly reported at the time that the historic light aircraft had been completely destroyed. Deer later told TopSouthMedia that he had received condolence messages from across the country, underscoring the aircraft’s sentimental and historical value to the local aviation community.
Legal Claims Initiated by Deer
In the aftermath, Deer filed a civil claim in the Nelson District Court against SPAL, alleging negligence. He contended that SPAL owed him a duty of care to ensure proper fire‑safety protocols were followed and that the firm breached this duty by allowing Ryder to connect an external power source while Ferguson was working on, or about to work on, the fuel system. Deer sought compensation for the loss of the aircraft, plus interest and costs, asserting that the breach directly caused the fire and the subsequent destruction of his $315,000 asset.
SPAL’s Defensive Position and Counter‑Claims
SPAL denied the specific allegations of negligence but accepted that it held a general duty to exercise reasonable care and skill when performing work on aircraft, which included mitigating fire‑risk hazards. In response, SPAL lodged a contributory claim against Deer, suggesting that his own actions may have contributed to the loss, and a third‑party claim against Ferguson and his company, Ferguson Aero Ltd, asserting vicarious liability for Ferguson’s conduct during the maintenance session. These counter‑claims were intended to shift responsibility or recover costs should Deer’s primary claim succeed.
Judicial Evaluation of Evidence
Judge Kevin Kelly delivered a reserved decision in April, carefully weighing the testimonies of Ryder, Ferguson, and expert witnesses. Ryder testified under cross‑examination that it was standard practice to request verbal confirmation before connecting a GPU, and that he had followed this procedure each time others were working on or near an aircraft. Ferguson, by contrast, offered an explanation that the judge characterized as “hindsight reasoning,” suggesting that his account was shaped after the fact rather than reflecting contemporaneous practice. The judge noted that the evidence indicated Ferguson was aware Ryder would need power for the avionics task, undermining the assertion that connecting the GPU was inherently improper under the circumstances.
Judgment and Dismissal of Claims
Ultimately, Judge Kelly was not satisfied that SPAL’s employee, Ryder, had been negligent in the manner pleaded by Deer. He concluded that, even with expert evidence, it had not been established that Ryder should never have connected an external power source while Ferguson was working on the fuel system. Consequently, Deer’s negligence claim against SPAL was dismissed. Because the primary claim failed, the judge also dismissed SPAL’s contributory claim against Deer and the third‑party claim against Ferguson and his company, finding no basis for those actions once the underlying negligence allegation was not proven.
Consequences and Costs
The judge observed that Deer had already been paid the insured value of the aircraft by his insurer, though the insurer retained the right to pursue reimbursement from a third party. With SPAL having successfully defended against Deer’s claim, the court noted that SPAL was, on its face, entitled to recover its legal costs. Judge Kelly encouraged the parties to agree on costs among themselves to avoid further litigation. Both SPAL and Deer indicated they were assessing the outcome and had no immediate comment, while Tracy Neal of NZME reported on the proceedings as the Open Justice correspondent for the Nelson region.
Broader Implications for Aviation Maintenance Safety
The case highlights the complexities inherent in assigning liability during simultaneous maintenance tasks performed by different specialists. It underscores the importance of clear communication, standardized safety checks (such as verbal confirmation before applying external power), and robust fire‑prevention protocols in hangars where fuel systems are exposed. While the court did not find negligence on the part of Ryder, the incident serves as a reminder that even routine procedures can become hazardous if situational awareness and preventive measures are not rigorously maintained. Operators, maintenance organizations, and independent contractors may benefit from reviewing and reinforcing their safety management systems to reduce the risk of similar occurrences in the future.