In a lawsuit concerning an aircraft accident, what effect may a conviction for violating FAR have on the outcome?

A conviction for violating the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) can establish negligence per se in a lawsuit concerning an aircraft accident. Negligence per se refers to a legal doctrine whereby an action is considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation. In this context, if a pilot or operator is found guilty of a FAR violation that was a proximate cause of the accident, this can be used to demonstrate that they did not adhere to the standard of care required by law.

This principle is significant because it allows the plaintiff to prove negligence without needing to establish the standard of care through other means; the violation itself serves as a clear indication of failure to uphold safety regulations. When a court recognizes a FAR violation as negligence per se, it strengthens the plaintiff's case by providing a direct link between the regulatory breach and the accident, thereby increasing the likelihood of liability.

In the context of the other options, while it's true that penalties may be influenced (leading to severe consequences in some cases), and a conviction does not automatically absolve a pilot of liability, the most directly applicable effect within the framework of determining negligence and liability in aviation accidents is the establishment of negligence per se. The connection between adhering to regulatory standards and determining liability makes option C the correct