Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of Mr Davis's claim would argue that he suffered devastating, life-changing injuries – brain damage and a cracked skull – in a crash that occurred barely minutes after take-off, and if a faulty component genuinely caused the failure, responsibility should fall on whoever supplied, maintained or inspected the aircraft, not on the pilot who trusted it to be airworthy. They would say that participating in amateur aviation does not mean waiving the right to a properly functioning machine, and that a £2million claim reflects the genuine, lifelong costs of care, lost income and reduced quality of life that follow catastrophic injury. Seeking redress through the courts is simply the recognised route for establishing fault and ensuring an injured person isn't left to shoulder those costs alone.

The case against

Those inclined towards caution would note that stunt and aerobatic flying is a pursuit undertaken with full awareness of its inherent risks, and that pinning a crash on a single specific cause, such as one faulty nut, months after the event can be genuinely difficult to prove beyond doubt. They would argue that pilot error, weather conditions or wider maintenance history could equally have played a role, and that any defendant, whether a manufacturer, maintenance provider or insurer, is entitled to have such a substantial claim tested rigorously in court rather than accepted on the claimant's account alone. This is not a judgement on Mr Davis personally, but a reflection of the ordinary principle that large compensation claims require robust, carefully scrutinised evidence before liability is assigned.