Brazilian Air crash Complaint - Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand Company, United Technologies,...

7/27/2019 Brazilian Air crash Complaint - Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand Company, United Technologies, Embraer Aircraft Holdings, and others.

1/40


2/40

2

Connecticut corporation, HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND AVIATION SERVICES,

INC. (hereinafter HAMILTON AVIATION), a Florida corporation, PRATT &

WHITNEY CANADA (hereinafter PW CANADA), a foreign corporation, PRATT

& WHITNEY ENGINE SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter PW ENGINE SERVICES),

a Florida corporation, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (hereinafter

UTC), a Connecticut corporation, EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE AERONAUTICA

S.A. (hereinafter EMBRAER), a foreign corporation, and EMBRAER AIRCRAFT

HOLDING, INC. (hereinafter EMBRAER AIRCRAFT), a Florida corporation, and

states in support of the complaint as follows:

FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

1. This is an action for damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand

Dollars ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs.

2. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff, EDILZA JESUS, was and

is the Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CLAUDIO JESUS.

3. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff, EDILZA JESUS, was and

is the wife of CLAUDIO JESUS (hereinafter the Decedent).

4. At all times material hereto, IVAN CLAUDIO LARAY DE JESUS

(hereinafter IVAN JESUS), was and is the natural son of the Decedent.

5. At all times material hereto, DENISE LARAY DE JESUS

(hereinafter DENISE JESUS) was and is the natural daughter of the Decedent.


3/40


4/40

4

e. maintains agents and/or representatives in the State of Florida by

which it conducts its business of designing, manufacturing and

selling aircraft propellers;

f. advertises its products and services in the State of Florida;

g. a substantial dollar value of aircraft propellers sold by HAMILTON

are sold in the State of Florida;

h. does business through aircraft manufacturers, retailers, agents and

distributors in the State of Florida;

i. is authorized to do business in the State of Florida;j. caused the damages alleged herein within the State of Florida

arising out of an act or omission by HAMILTON outside this state,

when the products manufactured by HAMILTON outside of the

State of Florida were used or consumed within Florida in the

ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use; and/or

k. has a registered agent in the State of Florida, CT Corporation

System, located at 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation,

Broward County, Florida.

9. At all times material hereto, HAMILTON AVIATION was and is a

Florida corporation and a subsidiary or division of HAMILTON, which is

registered under the fictitious name of CARIBE AVIATION, with its principal

place of business in Miramar, Florida. HAMILTON AVIATION at all times was

and is a repair and overhaul center for the propeller blades manufactured by

HAMILTON.


5/40

5

10. At all times material hereto, PW CANADA was and is a foreign

corporation and wholly owned subsidiary or division of UTC, with its principal

place of business in Longueuil, Quebec, Canada. PW CANADA at all times was

and is engaged in the business of designing, certifying, testing, manufacturing

and selling aircraft engines and spare parts, including the engine model PW-118

Turboprop Engine (hereinafter the subject engine) of the subject aircraft.

11. At all times material hereto, PW CANADA was and is doing

business in the State of Florida and subject to the jurisdiction of this Court

pursuant to 48.193 Fla. Stat., in that PW CANADA:a. operates, conducts, engages in or carries on a business or

business venture in the State of Florida by and through PW

ENGINE SERVICES, located at 8440 Tradeport Dr., Suite 105,

Orlando, Florida;

b. engages in substantial, not isolated, activities within the State of

Florida;

c. repairs, services, maintains and sells aircraft engines and spare

parts in the State of Florida;

d. owns, leases and/or uses real estate in the State of Florida;


which it conducts its business of designing, manufacturing and

selling aircraft engines and spare parts;



6/40

6

g. a substantial dollar value of aircraft engines sold by PW CANADA

are sold in the State of Florida;



i. is authorized to do business in the State of Florida;

j. caused the damages alleged herein within the State of Florida

arising out of an act or omission by PW CANADA outside this state,

when the products manufactured by PW CANADA outside of the

State of Florida were used or consumed within Florida in theordinary course of commerce, trade, or use; and/or




12. At all times material hereto, PW ENGINE SERVICES was and is a

Florida corporation and a subsidiary or division of PW CANADA, with its principal

place of business in Orlando, Florida. PW ENGINE SERVICES at all times was

and is engaged in providing product support and a full range of overhaul, repair

and fleet management services for aircraft engines and spare parts, including the

subject engine of the subject aircraft.

13. At all times material hereto, UTC was and is a Connecticut

corporation, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut, having

PW CANADA and HAMILTON as its business units. UTC at all times was and is


7/40

7

engaged in providing products and services to the aerospace industry, including

the engines and propellers that are the subject matter of this Complaint.

14. At all times material hereto, UTC was and is doing business in the

State of Florida and subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 48.193

Fla. Stat., in that UTC:

a. operates, conducts, engages in or carries on a business or

business venture in the State of Florida by and through its business

units PW CANADA and HAMILTON;

b. engages in substantial, not isolated, activities within the State ofFlorida;

c. repairs, services, maintains and sells aircraft components and

spare parts in the State of Florida;



which it conducts its business of providing products and services

for the aerospace industry;


g. a substantial dollar value of aircraft components and spare parts

sold by UTC are sold in the State of Florida;



i. is authorized to do business in the State of Florida;


8/40

8

j. caused the damages alleged herein within the State of Florida

arising out of an act or omission by UTC outside this state, when

the products and services provided outside of the State of Florida

were used or consumed within Florida in the ordinary course of

commerce, trade, or use; and/or




15. At all times material hereto, EMBRAER was and is a foreigncorporation with its principal place of business in So Jos dos Campos, State of

So Paulo, Brazil. EMBRAER at all times was and is engaged in the business of

designing, certifying, testing, manufacturing and selling commercial aircrafts,

including the subject aircraft.

16. At all times material hereto, EMBRAER was and is doing business

in the State of Florida and subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to

48.193 Fla. Stat., in that EMBRAER:

a. operates, conducts, engages in or carries on a business or

business venture in the State of Florida by and through its wholly

owned subsidiary EMBRAER AIRCRAFT, located at 276 West 34th

Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida;

b. engages in substantial, not isolated, activities within the State of

Florida;


9/40

9

c. sells, services, and distributes aircraft and aircraft parts in the State

of Florida;



which it conducts its business;

f. maintains bank accounts in the State of Florida;

g. advertises its products and services in the State of Florida;

h. a substantial percentage of all aircraft in the United States is

repaired and serviced by EMBRAER in the State of Florida;i. a substantial dollar value of aircraft sold by EMBRAER are sold in

the State of Florida;

j. does business through aircraft manufacturers, retailers, agents and


k. is authorized to do business in the State of Florida;

l. caused the damages alleged herein within the State of Florida

arising out of an act or omission by EMBRAER outside this state,

when the products manufactured by EMBRAER outside of the

State of Florida were used or consumed within Florida in the

ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use; and/or

m. has a registered agent in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

17. At all times material hereto, EMBRAER AIRCRAFT was and is a

Florida corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of EMBRAER, with its

principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT at


10/40

10

all times acted and acts as a dealer of aircrafts and aircraft components, and was

and is engaged in the business of testing, servicing, repairing and maintaining

aircrafts manufactured by EMBRAER.

18. On May 14, 2004, the flight 4815 operated by RICO LINHAS

AREAS S.A. (hereinafter RICO) from So Paulo de Olivena, Brazil to

Manaus, Brazil, crashed in the Amazon forest, in the proximities of Manaus,

Brazil.

19. The aircraft used by RICO to operate the flight 4815 was the

subject aircraft, which transported 30 passengers and 3 crew members.20. All the passengers of the subject aircraft, including the Decedent,

and the crew members died instantly.

21. The subject propeller blades of the subject aircraft were designed,

manufactured, assembled, sold, serviced, repaired and maintained by

HAMILTON.

22. The subject propeller blades of the subject aircraft were serviced,

repaired, maintained and sold by HAMILTON AVIATION.

23. The subject engines of the subject aircraft were designed,

manufactured, assembled, sold, serviced, repaired and maintained by PW

CANADA.

24. The subject engines of the subject aircraft were serviced, repaired,

maintained and sold by PW ENGINE SERVICES.


11/40

11

25. The subject engines and propellers of the subject aircraft were

tested, serviced, repaired, maintained and sold by UTC, by and through its

business units PW CANADA and HAMILTON.

26. The subject aircraft was designed, manufactured, assembled, sold,

serviced, repaired and maintained by EMBRAER.

27. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT acted as a dealer for the subject aircraft

and aircraft components, and serviced, repaired, and maintained such aircraft

and components thereof.

28. The subject aircraft, EMB-120, has been involved in eight (8)accidents from 1987 to 2004, causing fatalities of the totality of the passengers

and crew members in at least five (5) accidents.

29. The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter the FAA) has

issued several airworthiness directives from 1987 to 2004 for the EMBRAER

EMB-120 aircrafts, which are the subject matter of this Complaint.

30. The FAA has issued several airworthiness directives from 1988 to

2003 for PW CANADA PW-118 Turboprop Engines, which are the subject matter

of this Complaint.

31. The FAA has issued several airworthiness directives from 1993 to

1996 for HAMILTON 14RF propellers, which are the subject matter of this

Complaint.

32. The accident involving the subject aircraft was caused in whole or

in part due to the improper inspection and/or repair and/or maintenance of the

engine and/or the propeller blades and/or aircraft components, which problems


12/40

12

were not properly identified and/or repaired by the Defendant(s) HAMILTON

and/or HAMILTON AVIATION and/or PW CANADA and/or PW ENGINE

SERVICES and/or UTC and/or EMBRAER and/or EMBRAER AIRCRAFT.

33. As a direct and proximate cause of the above-described accident,

the Decedent, CLAUDIO JESUS, died.

34. As a direct and proximate cause of the above-described accident,

the ESTATE OF CLAUDIO JESUS and its survivors suffered damages as

follows:

a. EDILZA JESUS, the wife of CLAUDIO JESUS, suffered loss ofmarital society, companionship, sustained the loss of support and

services of CLAUDIO JESUS since the date of her death, and has

suffered mental pain and suffering from the date of the death of

CLAUDIO JESUS.

b. IVAN JESUS, a natural son of CLAUDIO JESUS, suffered loss of

parental society, companionship, instruction, guidance, nurture,

sustained the loss of support and services of CLAUDIO JESUS

since the date of her death, and has suffered mental pain and

suffering from the date of the death of CLAUDIO JESUS.

c. DENISE JESUS, a natural daughter of CLAUDIO JESUS, suffered

loss of parental society, companionship, instruction, guidance,

nurture, sustained the loss of support and services of CLAUDIO

JESUS since the date of her death, and has suffered mental pain

and suffering from the date of the death of CLAUDIO JESUS.


13/40


14/40

14

38. At all times material hereto, HAMILTON had a duty to exercise a

reasonable care in the inspection, repair and maintenance of the propeller blades

designed, certified, tested, manufactured and sold by HAMILTON, including the

subject propellers, as well as a duty to insure that the inspection, repair and

maintenance techniques were adequate and effective, and that the personnel in

charge of inspecting and repairing was properly trained and fully aware of all

documentation and communications prepared by HAMILTON regarding the

inspection, repair and maintenance techniques of such propeller blades.

39. HAMILTON was negligent in the inspection, repair and/ormaintenance of the subject propeller and breached its duty of care to the

Decedent, who was a foreseeable user of the subject aircraft, in the following

regards:

a. HAMILTON negligently failed to properly inspect, repair and

maintain the subject propellers so that they would be safe for use.

b. HAMILTON negligently failed to provide proper supervision of

persons attempting to perform the inspection, repair and/or

maintenance of the subject propellers.

c. HAMILTON negligently failed to provide proper technical training of

persons in charge of performing the inspection, repair and/or

maintenance of the subject propellers.

d. HAMILTON negligently failed to communicate to its personnel in a

proper manner its inspection, repair and/or maintenance

techniques.


15/40

15

e. HAMILTON failed to properly and adequately maintain and/or repair

and/or replace the propellers of the subject aircraft in a safe and

prudent manner.

f. HAMILTON failed to properly warn the owners and/or users and/or

persons servicing and maintaining the subject aircraft of the defects

in the subject propellers and other components thereof;

g. HAMILTON failed to properly warn the owners and/or users and/or

persons servicing and maintaining the subject aircraft of the

dangers of the subject propellers and other components thereofwhich, while not defective in and of themselves, could create a

dangerous situation if the subject propellers were not properly

operated and maintained under certain conditions.

h. HAMILTON negligently breached their continuing duty to recall or

retrofit the aircraft propellers and other components thereof when it

knew or reasonably should have known of the defects in the subject

propellers.

40. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the above-

described negligence of HAMILTON, the Decedents estate and its survivors

suffered damages as set forth in paragraph 34 above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, EDILZA JESUS, as Personal

Representative of the ESTATE OF CLAUDIO JESUS, demands judgment for

damages against HAMILTON, together with interest and costs, and demands trial

by jury.


16/40

16

COUNT II STRICT LIABILITY OF HAMILTON

The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully

set forth here each and every allegation set forth in the paragraphs 1 through 34.

41. HAMILTON was engaged in the business of designing,

manufacturing and selling the propeller blades that are the subject matter of this

Complaint.

42. The subject propellers were expected to reach and did reach theuser or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which they were

sold.

43. At the time the subject propellers were sold by HAMILTON, they

were in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user or

consumer.

44. The Decedent, CLAUDIO JESUS, was within the scope of persons

who would use the product in question and be affected by its use.

45. HAMILTON is strictly liable for any physical harm caused to the

Decedent as a result of the defect of the subject propellers sold by HAMILTON.

46. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described product

defect, the ESTATE OF CLAUDIO JESUS and its survivors have suffered

damages as set forth in Paragraph 34 above.




17/40

17

damages against HAMILTON, together with interest and costs, and demands trial

by jury.

COUNT III NEGLIGENCE OF HAMILTON AVIATION



47. At all times material hereto, HAMILTON AVIATION engaged in the

business of servicing, repairing, maintaining and selling aircraft propeller blades,including the propeller blades that are subject matter of this Complaint, for

aircraft use by members of the general public.

48. The propeller blades in question were manufactured by HAMILTON

with the knowledge that they would be used in aircraft which may be used as a

form of public transportation.

49. At all times material hereto, the subject aircraft accident was

caused in whole or in part due to improper, inadequate and ineffective corporate

inspection and/or repair techniques, training, documentation, and

communications involving the subject propellers, which problems were not

identified and/or not properly repaired by HAMILTON AVIATION.

50. At all times material hereto, HAMILTON AVIATION had a duty to

exercise a reasonable care in the inspection, repair and maintenance of the

propeller blades designed, certified, tested, and manufactured by HAMILTON,

including the subject propellers, as well as a duty to insure that the inspection,


18/40

18

repair and maintenance techniques were adequate and effective, and that the

personnel in charge of inspecting and repairing was properly trained and fully

aware of all documentation and communications regarding the inspection, repair

and maintenance techniques of such propeller blades.

51. HAMILTON AVIATION was negligent in the inspection, repair

and/or maintenance of the subject propeller and breached its duty of care to the


regards:

a. HAMILTON AVIATION negligently failed to properly inspect, repairand maintain the subject propellers so that they would be safe for

use.

b. HAMILTON AVIATION negligently failed to provide proper

supervision of persons attempting to perform the inspection, repair

and/or maintenance of the subject propellers.

c. HAMILTON AVIATION negligently failed to provide proper technical

training of persons in charge of performing the inspection, repair

and/or maintenance of the subject propellers.

d. HAMILTON AVIATION negligently failed to communicate to its

personnel in a proper manner its inspection, repair and/or

maintenance techniques.

e. HAMILTON AVIATION failed to properly and adequately maintain

and/or repair and/or replace the propellers of the subject aircraft in

a safe and prudent manner.


19/40


20/40

20



53. HAMILTON AVIATION was engaged in the business of servicing,

repairing, maintaining and selling the propeller blades that are the subject matter

of this Complaint.

54. The subject propellers were expected to reach and did reach the

user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which they were

sold.55. At the time the subject propellers were sold, they were in a

defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.



57. HAMILTON AVIATION is strictly liable for any physical harm

caused to the Decedent as a result of the defect of the subject propellers sold by

HAMILTON AVIATION.






damages against HAMILTON AVIATION, together with interest and costs, and

demands trial by jury.


21/40

21

COUNT V NEGLIGENCE OF PW CANADA



59. At all times material hereto, PW CANADA engaged in the business

of designing, certifying, testing, manufacturing, and selling aircraft engines,

including the engines that are subject matter of this Complaint, for aircraft use by

members of the general public.60. The engines in question were manufactured by PW CANADA with

the knowledge that they would be used in aircraft which may be used as a form

of public transportation.




communications involving the subject engines, which problems were not

identified and/or not properly repaired by PW CANADA.

62. At all times material hereto, PW CANADA had a duty to exercise a

reasonable care in the inspection, repair and maintenance of the engines

designed, certified, tested, manufactured and sold by PW CANADA, including the

subject engines, as well as a duty to insure that the inspection, repair and




22/40

22

documentation and communications prepared by PW CANADA regarding the

inspection, repair and maintenance techniques of such engines.

63. PW CANADA was negligent in the inspection, repair and/or

maintenance of the subject engines and breached its duty of care to the


regards:

a. PW CANADA negligently failed to properly inspect, repair and

maintain the subject engines so that they would be safe for use.

b. PW CANADA negligently failed to provide proper supervision ofpersons attempting to perform the inspection, repair and/or

maintenance of the subject engines.

c. PW CANADA negligently failed to provide proper technical training

of persons in charge of performing the inspection, repair and/or

maintenance of the subject engines.

d. PW CANADA negligently failed to communicate to its personnel in

a proper manner its inspection, repair and/or maintenance

techniques.

e. PW CANADA failed to properly and adequately maintain and/or

repair and/or replace the engines of the subject aircraft in a safe

and prudent manner.

f. PW CANADA failed to properly warn the owners and/or users

and/or persons servicing and maintaining the subject aircraft of the

defects in the subject engines and other components thereof;


23/40

23

g. PW CANADA failed to properly warn the owners and/or users

and/or persons servicing and maintaining the subject aircraft of the

dangers of the subject engines and other components thereof

which, while not defective in and of themselves, could create a

dangerous situation if the subject engines were not properly

operated and maintained under certain conditions.

h. PW CANADA negligently breached their continuing duty to recall or

retrofit the aircraft engines and other components thereof when it

knew or reasonably should have known of the defects in the subjectengines.


described negligence of PW CANADA, the Decedents estate and its survivors




damages against PW CANADA, together with interest and costs, and demands

trial by jury.

COUNT VI STRICT LIABILITY OF PW CANADA




24/40

24

65. PW CANADA was engaged in the business of designing,

manufacturing and selling the engines that are the subject matter of this

Complaint.

66. The subject engines were expected to reach and did reach the user

or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold.

67. At the time the subject engines were sold by PW CANADA, they


consumer.

68. The Decedent, CLAUDIO JESUS, was within the scope of personswho would use the product in question and be affected by its use.

69. PW CANADA is strictly liable for any physical harm caused to the

Decedent as a result of the defect of the subject engines sold by PW CANADA.






damages against PW CANADA, together with interest and costs, and demands

trial by jury.

COUNT VII NEGLIGENCE OF PW ENGINE SERVICES


25/40

25



71. At all times material hereto, PW ENGINE SERVICES engaged in

the business of testing, servicing, repairing, maintaining and selling aircraft

engines, including the engines that are subject matter of this Complaint.

72. The engines in question were produced by PW CANADA, the

parent company of PW ENGINE SERVICES, and were tested, serviced, repaired

and/or maintained by PW ENGINE SERVICES, with the knowledge that the

subject engines would be used in aircraft which may be used as a form of publictransportation.




communications involving the subject engines, which problems were not

identified and/or not properly repaired by PW ENGINE SERVICES.

74. At all times material hereto, PW ENGINE SERVICES had a duty to


engines designed, certified, tested and manufactured by PW CANADA, including

the subject engine, as well as a duty to insure that the inspection, repair and



documentation and communications regarding the inspection, repair and


26/40

26

maintenance techniques of such engines, so that the passengers of the subject

aircraft would be safe.

75. PW ENGINE SERVICES was negligent in the inspection, repair

and/or maintenance of the subject engines and breached its duty of care to the


regards:

a. PW ENGINE SERVICES negligently failed to properly inspect,

repair and maintain the subject engines so that they would be safe

for use.b. PW ENGINE SERVICES negligently failed to provide proper


and/or maintenance of the subject engines.

c. PW ENGINE SERVICES negligently failed to provide proper

technical training of persons in charge of performing the inspection,

repair and/or maintenance of the subject engines.

d. PW ENGINE SERVICES negligently failed to communicate to its



e. PW ENGINE SERVICES failed to properly and adequately maintain

and/or repair and/or replace the engines of the subject aircraft in a

safe and prudent manner.


27/40

27

f. PW ENGINE SERVICES failed to properly warn the owners and/or

users and/or persons servicing and maintaining the subject aircraft

of the defects in the subject engines and other components thereof;

g. PW ENGINE SERVICES failed to properly warn the owners and/or


of the dangers of the subject engines and other components

thereof which, while not defective in and of themselves, could

create a dangerous situation if the subject engines were not

properly operated and maintained under certain conditions.h. PW ENGINE SERVICES negligently breached their continuing duty

to recall or retrofit the aircraft engines and other components

thereof when it knew or reasonably should have known of the

defects in the subject engines.


described negligence of PW ENGINE SERVICES, the Decedents estate and its

survivors suffered damages as set forth in paragraph 34 above.



damages against PW ENGINE SERVICES, together with interest and costs, and


COUNT VIII STRICT LIABILITY OF PW ENGINE SERVICES


28/40

28



77. PW ENGINE SERVICES was engaged in the business of testing,

servicing, maintaining and selling the engines that are the subject matter of this

Complaint.

78. The subject engines were expected to reach and did reach the user

or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold.

79. At the time the subject engines were sold, they were in a defective

condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.80. The Decedent, CLAUDIO JESUS, was within the scope of persons


81. PW ENGINE SERVICES is strictly liable for any physical harm

caused to the Decedent as a result of the defect of the subject engines.






damages against PW ENGINE SERVICES, together with interest and costs, and


COUNT IX NEGLIGENCE OF UTC


29/40

29



83. At all times material hereto, UTC engaged in the business of

providing products and services for the aerospace industry, including the engines

and propellers that are subject matter of this Complaint.

84. The engines and/or propellers in question were designed, tested,

certified, manufactured, serviced, repaired and/or maintained by the business

units of UTC, PW CANADA and HAMILTON, with the knowledge that the subject

engines and propellers would be used in aircraft which may be used as a form ofpublic transportation.




communications involving the subject engines and propellers, which problems

were not identified and/or not properly repaired by UTC.

86. At all times material hereto, UTC had a duty to exercise a

reasonable care in the inspection, repair and maintenance of the engines and

propellers designed, certified, tested, manufactured and sold by its business

units, PW CANADA and HAMILTON, including the subject engines and

propellers, as well as a duty to insure that their inspection, repair and




30/40

30


maintenance techniques of the subject engines and propellers.

87. UTC by and through its business units was negligent in the

inspection, repair and/or maintenance of the subject engines and propellers, and

breached its duty of care to the Decedent, who was a foreseeable user of the

subject aircraft, in the following regards:

a. UTC negligently failed to properly inspect, repair and maintain the

subject engines and/or propellers so that they would be safe for

use.b. UTC negligently failed to provide proper supervision of persons

attempting to perform the inspection, repair and/or maintenance of

the subject engines and/or propellers.

c. UTC negligently failed to provide proper technical training of


maintenance of the subject engines and/or propellers.

d. UTC negligently failed to communicate to its personnel in a proper

manner its inspection, repair and/or maintenance techniques.

e. UTC failed to properly and adequately maintain and/or repair and/or

replace the engines and/or propellers of the subject aircraft in a

safe and prudent manner.

f. UTC failed to properly warn the owners and/or users and/or


in the subject engines, propellers and/or other components thereof;


31/40


32/40

32

89. UTC was a seller engaged in the business of providing products for

the aerospace industry, including the engines and propellers that are the subject

matter of this Complaint.

90. The subject engines and propellers were expected to reach and did

reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which

they were sold.

91. At the time the subject engines and/or propellers were sold, they


consumer.92. The Decedent, CLAUDIO JESUS, was within the scope of persons


93. UTC is strictly liable for any physical harm caused to the Decedent

as a result of the defect of the subject engines and/or propellers.






damages against UTC, together with interest and costs, and demands trial by

jury.

COUNT XI NEGLIGENCE OF EMBRAER


33/40

33



95. At all times material hereto, EMBRAER engaged in the business of

designing, certifying, testing, manufacturing, and selling aircrafts, including the

aircraft that is subject matter of this Complaint, for aircraft use by the general

public.

96. The aircrafts in question was manufactured by EMBRAER, and

were tested, serviced, repaired and/or maintained by EMBRAER, with the

knowledge that the subject aircraft would be used as a form of publictransportation.




communications involving the subject aircraft, which problems were not identified

and/or not properly repaired by EMBRAER.

98. At all times material hereto, EMBRAER had a duty to exercise a

reasonable care in the inspection, repair and maintenance of the aircraft

designed, certified, tested, manufactured and sold by EMBRAER, including the

subject aircraft, as well as a duty to insure that the inspection, repair and





34/40

34

maintenance techniques of such aircraft, so that the passengers of the subject


99. EMBRAER was negligent in the inspection, repair and/or

maintenance of the subject aircraft and breached its duty of care to the


regards:

a. EMBRAER negligently failed to properly inspect, repair and

maintain the subject aircraft so that it would be safe for use.

b. EMBRAER negligently failed to provide proper supervision ofpersons attempting to perform the inspection, repair and/or

maintenance of the subject aircraft.

c. EMBRAER negligently failed to provide proper technical training of


maintenance of the subject aircraft.

d. EMBRAER negligently failed to communicate to its personnel in a

proper manner its inspection, repair and/or maintenance

techniques.

e. EMBRAER failed to properly and adequately maintain and/or repair

the subject aircraft in a safe and prudent manner.

f. EMBRAER failed to properly warn the owners and/or users and/or


in the aircraft and other components thereof;


35/40

35

g. EMBRAER failed to properly warn the owners and/or users and/or

persons servicing and maintaining the subject aircraft of the

dangers of the subject aircraft and other components thereof which,

while not defective in and of themselves, could create a dangerous

situation if the subject aircraft was not properly operated and

maintained under certain conditions.

h. EMBRAER negligently breached their continuing duty to recall or

retrofit the aircraft and other components thereof when it knew or

reasonably should have known of the defects in the subject aircraft.100. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the above-

described negligence of EMBRAER, the Decedents estate and its survivors




damages against EMBRAER, together with interest and costs, and demands trial

by jury.

COUNT XII STRICT LIABILITY OF EMBRAER



101. EMBRAER was engaged in the business of designing,

manufacturing and selling the aircraft that is the subject matter of this Complaint.


36/40

36

102. The subject aircraft was expected to reach and did reach the user

or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

103. At the time the subject aircraft was sold by EMBRAER, it was in a

defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.



105. EMBRAER is strictly liable for any physical harm caused to the

Decedent as a result of the defect of the subject aircraft sold by EMBRAER.

106. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described productdefect, the ESTATE OF CLAUDIO JESUS and its survivors have suffered




damages against EMBRAER, together with interest and costs, and demands trial

by jury.

COUNT XIII NEGLIGENCE OF EMBRAER AIRCRAFT



107. At all times material hereto, EMBRAER AIRCRAFT acted and acts

as a dealer for aircraft and aircraft components, was and is engaged in the


37/40

37

business of testing, servicing, repairing and maintaining aircrafts, including the

aircraft that is subject matter of this Complaint.

108. The aircrafts in question were designed and manufactured by

EMBRAER, the parent company of EMBRAER AIRCRAFT, and were tested,

serviced, repaired, maintained and/or sold by EMBRAER AIRCRAFT, with the

knowledge that the subject aircraft would be used as a form of public

transportation.


caused in whole or in part due to improper, inadequate and ineffective corporateinspection and/or repair techniques, training, documentation, and

communications involving the subject aircraft, which problems were not identified

and/or not properly repaired by EMBRAER AIRCRAFT.

110. At all times material hereto, EMBRAER AIRCRAFT had a duty to


aircraft designed, certified, tested and manufactured by EMBRAER, including the

subject aircraft, as well as a duty to insure that the inspection, repair and




maintenance techniques of such aircraft, so that the passengers of the subject


111. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT was negligent in the inspection, repair

and/or maintenance of the subject aircraft and breached its duty of care to the


38/40

38


regards:

a. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT negligently failed to properly inspect, repair

and maintain the subject aircraft so that it would be safe for use.

b. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT negligently failed to provide proper


and/or maintenance of the subject aircraft.

c. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT negligently failed to provide proper

technical training of persons in charge of performing the inspection,repair and/or maintenance of the subject aircraft.

d. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT negligently failed to communicate to its



e. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT failed to properly and adequately maintain

and/or repair the subject aircraft in a safe and prudent manner.

f. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT failed to properly warn the owners and/or


of the defects in the aircraft and other components thereof;

g. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT failed to properly warn the owners and/or


of the dangers of the subject aircraft and other components thereof

which, while not defective in and of themselves, could create a


39/40


40/40

115. At the time the subject aircraft was sold, it was in a defective

condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.



117. EMBRAER AIRCRAFT is strictly liable for any physical harm

caused to the Decedent as a result of the defect of the subject aircraft.



damages as set forth in Paragraph 34 above.WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, EDILZA JESUS, as Personal


damages against EMBRAER AIRCRAFT, together with interest and costs, and


Respectfully submitted,

Edward Montoya, Esq.MONTOYA LAW FIRM, P.A.231 Andalusia Avenue, Ste. 370Coral Gables, FL 33134Telephone (305) 445-9292Fax (305) 445-9249

By: ______________________Edward Montoya, Esq.Fla. Bar # 0972649

Brazilian Air crash Complaint - Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand Company, United Technologies,...

Documents

Transcript of Brazilian Air crash Complaint - Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand Company, United Technologies,...