POIDOMANI v. BOMBARDIER, INC. et al Complaint

8/7/2019 POIDOMANI v. BOMBARDIER, INC. et al Complaint

1/22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SALVATORE POIDOMANI., Individuallyand as Administrator Ad Prosequendum of theEstate of Matilda Quintero,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BOMBARDIER, INC.; BOMBARDIERAEROSPACE CORP.; COLGAN AIR, INC.,CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.;

FLIGHTSAFETY, INC. a/k/aFLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL, INC.;PINNACLE AIRLINES CORP.

Defendants

))))))))))))

)))))

Case No.:

COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT

Salvatore Poidomani., individually and as Administrator Ad Proseqwendum of the Estate

of Matilda Quintero, by and through his attorneys Motley Rice LLC, for the Compliant against

defendants, and each of them allege the following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is the duly appointed Administrator Ad Prosequendum of the Estate ofMatilda Quintero, who died in the crash of Continental Flight 3407 on December 22, 2010.

Letters of Administration were issued to the Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff brings this action as Administrator and personal representative of theEstate of Matilda Quintero, deceased, and on behalf of each and every beneficiary, survivor, and

heir of decedent under applicable law, including her children and mother.

Case 1:11-cv-00118-WMS Document 1 Filed 02/08/11 Page 1 of 22


2/22

- 2

3. Defendant, Pinnacle Airlines Corp. (hereinafter Pinnacle) is a corporationorganized and existing under the laws of Delaware, maintains its principal place of business in

Memphis, Tennessee, is and was engaged in the business of air transportation and the carriage of

persons and property for hire in the State of New York and elsewhere in the United States,

including this Judicial District. Defendant Pinnacle Airlines Corp. is and was, at all times

relevant to this Complaint, the parent company of Defendant Colgan.

4. Defendant Continental Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter Continental) is a corporationorganized and existing under the laws of Delaware, maintains its principal place of business in

Houston, Texas, and is engaged in business in new York, including this Judicial District, and

operates, inter alia, under the name continental connection.

5. Defendant Bombardier Aerospace Corp. (hereinafter Bombardier Aerospace) isa corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, and maintains its

principal place of business in Quebec, Canada. Bombardier conducts substantial business in and

is engaged in business in New York, including this Judicial District.

6. Defendants Bombardier Aerospace and Bombardier, Inc. are hereinaftercollectively referred to as Bombardier.

7. Defendant Colgan Air, Inc. (hereafter Colgan) is and was, at all times relevantto this Complaint, a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Pinnacle Airlines Corp. and a

corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of

Virginia, having its principal place of business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Defendant

Colgan is and was engaged in the business of air transportation in the State of New York and

elsewhere in the United States pursuant to an Air Carrier Operating Certificate issued to it by the

Federal Aviation Administration (hereafter FAA) authorizing it to act as a common carrier in



3/22

- 3

airtransportation and air commerce as defined in Section 40102 of the Transportation Act

[49 U.S.C. 40102 (Subtitle VII Aviation Programs)].

8. Defendant FlightSafety, Inc., a/k/a FlightSafety International, Inc. (hereafterFSI) is and was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, a corporation and/or corporate

enterprise organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York that is

authorized to do and is doing business in the State of New York, County of Queens.

9. Defendant FSI is and was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, the holder of aTraining Center Certificate, Training Specifications and/or such other air agency certificates

issued by the FAA pursuant to Part 142 of the FAA Regulations [14 C.F.R. 142.1 et seq.]

authorizing Defendant FSI to provide flight simulation equipment, training devices and, among

other services, initial, transition and recurrent pilot training to and for the benefit of persons,

airmen, agencies and air carriers in the aviation industry, including Defendants Colgan, Pinnacle

and/or Continental.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to, 28 U.S.C. 1332. There is diversity ofcitizenship and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of seventy five thousand ($75,000.00)

dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.

11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S..1367.12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. On or about February 12, 2009, Matilda Quintero was a flight attendant employedby Colgan Air, Inc. (hereinafter Colgan) on board Continental Connection Flight 3407, en route

from Newark, New Jersey to Buffalo, New York.



4/22

- 4

14. The aircraft involved in the Accident was a Bombardier Model Dash 8-Q400 civilaircraft bearing Serial No. 4200 and U.S. Registration No. N200WQ, a Transport Category

aircraft powered by Turboprop Pratt & Whitney 150A Engines and equipped with, among other

things, an Ice and Rain Protection System, a Stall Protection System, a Low Speed Que, a digital

Air Speed Indicator system, a Control Warning System, and a digital Engine Display (hereinafter

the Bombardier Aircraft).

15. On or about said date, as the aircraft approached Buffalo Niagara InternationalAirport, the aircraft crashed.

16. For a measurable period of time, the aircraft flew out of control, violently movedin unexpected directions, dived, rolled, inverted, and subjected Matilda Quintero to unusual g-

forces, all of which resulted in physical bodily injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish,

emotional distress, property damage, and other damages to Matilda Quintero aboard the aircraft.

17. Thereafter the plane crashed into the ground, resulting in further damages andinjuries to Matilda Quintero and damage to her personal property and which crash ultimately

resulted in the death of Matilda Quintero.

18. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants herein, and each ofthem, there was a measurable and significant period of time before the crash, as well as before

the first trauma causing injury to Matilda Quintero and/or the time she was otherwise first

injured before her death, she consciously suffered pre-impact fright and terror and physical pain

and suffering, post-impact fright and terror and physical pain and suffering, mental anguish,

emotional distress, sever injuries, and damages for a measurable period of time before she died.



5/22

- 5

19. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants herein, and each ofthem, before her death, Matilda Quinteros personal property and the use thereof, were damaged,

destroyed, and tortuously interfered with, causing her additional damage.

20. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants herein, and each ofthem, Matilda Quintero died and her beneficiaries, heirs and survivors including her children and

mother, have been and continue to be, deprived of their mothers and daughters companionship,

care, comfort, consortium, education, guidance, training, and other economic and pecuniary

losses, and non-economic and non-pecuniary losses.


mother have suffered, and continue to suffer, other compensable damages under applicable law,

according to proof.


mother have incurred funeral, burial, travel, and related expenses and property damage,

according to proof.

23. Before and on February 12. 2009, defendants Continental, Pinnacle and Colganwere commercial common carries engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire in

interstate and international commerce in that, among other things, they each regularly operated

scheduled passenger flights and maintained, inspected, serviced, scheduled, leased, and

purchased aircraft, including the N200WQ, and aircraft manuals for the aircraft and their flight

operations.



6/22

- 6

24. Before and on February 12, 2009, defendants Continental and Pinnacle owned,controlled, inspected, and monitored, the operations of Colgan.

25. Bombardier designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, maintained,monitored, marketed, sold and placed into the stream of commerce the Bombardier Aircraft and

its component parts and systems.

26. Bombardier prepared, wrote, approved, sold and transferred to Colgan/Pinnaclemanuals, instruction. Bulletins, and warnings for the Bombardier Aircraft and its components

parts and systems including, but not limited to, the Aeroplane Operating Manual, the Airplane

Flight Manual, Quick Reference Handbook, service bulletins and other warnings (herein after the

manuals).

27. The Bombardier Aircraft and its component parts, systems and manuals were soldby or on behalf of Bombardier to Colgan/Pinnacle pursuant to purchase agreement No. 0604,

relating to the purchase of twenty-five (25) Bombardier Q400 series aircraft, dated February 17,

2007.

28. On February 12, 2009, the Bombardier Aircraft and its component parts andsystems were being operated and used by Colgan for the purpose and in the manner for which

they were designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, marketed and intended to be used in a

manner reasonably foreseeable to Bombardier and in a condition without substantial change from

their original condition when sold by Bombardier to Pinnacle.

29. Subsequent to the sale and distribution of the Bombardier Aircraft and itscomponent parts, systems and manuals, Bombardier continued to provide customer support to

Colgan and Pinnacle, including information concerning the design, operation and maintenance of

the Bombardier Aircraft and its component parts, systems and manuals.



7/22

- 7

30. Bombardier owed a duty to Colgan, Pinnacle and Matilda Quintero to exercisereasonable care in the design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, and maintenance of the

Bombardier Aircraft and its component parts, systems and manuals. Upon information and

belief, Bombardier violated such duty.

31. Upon information and belief, the Accident and the plaintiffs damages wereproximately caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of Bombardier with respect to

the design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, and maintenance of the Bombardier aircraft and

its component parts, systems and manuals.

32. Defendant Bombardier designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested,distributed, serviced, maintained, monitored, repaired, marketed and introduced into the stream

of commerce the aircraft, and its component parts, including, but not limited to, the aircrafts de-

icing system, flight control system, stabilizer system, electrical system, and flight

instrumentation system, along with instructions, warnings, and flight operations and maintenance

manuals, for the aircraft and its component parts which it approved, wrote, prepared, provided,

monitored and sold, delivered, and provided to defendants, Continental, Pinnacle and Colgan,

and each of them and thereafter each of said defendants monitored the aircraft for maintenance,

mechanical reliability and airworthiness and undertook to, and did, service and maintain the

aircraft to provide for its mechanical reliability and airworthiness.

33. Prior to February 12, 2009, and while Defendant FSI was acting pursuant to atraining agreement entered into between Defendant FSI, as contract provider and Defendants

Colgan, Pinnacle and/or Continental as contractee(s), Defendant FSI authorized agent of its

contractee(s) undertook responsibility for providing Defendant Colgan employee, Marvin

Renslow, with the necessary flight simulator training required by Part 121 of the FAA



8/22

- 8

Regulations [14 C.F.R. 121.1 et seq.] to qualify Captain Renslow for duty as pilot in command

of a Bombardier Dash 8-Q400 aircraft operated in regular air carrier line operations.

34. More specifically, in November of 2008 Captain Renslow was trained using FSIsDash 8-Q400 simulator in St. Louis, Missouri.

35. Prior to February 12, 2008, and while Defendant FSI was acting pursuant to atraining agreement entered into between Defendant FSI as contract provider and Defendants

Colgan, Pinnacle and/or Continental, as contractee(s), Defendant FSI as authorized agent of its

contractee(s) undertook responsibility for providing Defendant Colgan employee, Rebecca

Shaw, with the necessary ground and transition flight simulator training required by Part 121 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations [14 C.F.R. 121.1 et seq.] to qualify First Officer Shaw for duty

as a first officer.

36. More specifically, on March of 2008 First Officer Shaw participated in andcompleted the First Officer Dash 8-Q400 Initial/Transition Course at FSIs Toronto Learning

Center.

37. At all times relevant to this Complaint, up to and including February 12, 2009,Defendant FSI, from its headquarters in Flushing, Queens County, New York, actively marketed

its services to the aviation community, airlines, private companies and the general public,

proclaiming that The best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained crew. making clear

that FSIs products and training were offered not just for the benefit of its customers, but for

those passengers and flight attendants that flew on its customers aircraft.

38. At all times relevant to this Complaint, up to and including February 12, 2009,Defendant FSI advertised on its website that it provided safety centered training to flight crews

of Bombardier regional jets: and provided training on the Dash 8-Q400 and claimed to have day



9/22

- 9

to day working relationships with the great majority of the aircraft manufacturers, which

ensuresaccess to the latest bulletins and best practices advisories. Despite this advertising

and these claims, upon information and belief, FSI never provided instruction to the Captain or

the First Officer in utilizing the stick pusher component in the Dash 8-Q400.

39. At all times relevant to this complaint, up to and including February 12, 2009,upon information and belief, Defendant FSI provided to its customers and utilized in its training

Dash 8-Q400 simulation and training equipment that was not representative of aircraft

performance.

40. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, up to andincluding February 12, 2009, FSI was under tremendous financial pressu re, and FSIs president

exhorted employees in an April 3, 2003, memorandum to do more to reduce costs and increase

revenues because [a]t the present time, expenses are too high for the amount of revenues we

generate; he pressured employees to cut costs, reduce staffing, increase revenue, and do

everything possible to run things more efficiently; he referred to the current training systems

thatneed[ed] to challenge and impress customers, make learning fun, and provide a level of

competency not yet achieved; he asked all employees to consolidate jobs, cut overhead,

better utilize instructor time, and find creative ways to streamline processes, both human and

computerized. This corporate culture and purposeful decision making led to substandard

flight and simulator training where key components of the aircraft including the stick pusher

mechanism on the Dash 8-Q400 were not adequately or accurately represented by flight

simulation and training devices, and thus not adequately explained or taught.

41. Defendants, and each of them, and their parents, subsidiaries, associates, andpartners, at all times pertinent hereto, and each of them, were the agent, servant, employee,



10/22

- 10

assignee, successor in interest or joint venture of each other, and were acting within the time,

purpose or scope of such agency or employment; and all acts or omissions alleged herein of each

such defendant were authorized adopted, approved, or ratified by each of the other defendants.

42. At all times here mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were fully informedof the actions of their agents and employees and thereafter no officer, director, or managing

agent of defendants repudiated those actions, which failure to repudiate constituted ratification,

adoption and approval of each of said actions.

43. Each of the defendants actions described in this Complaint were wanton andreckless and demonstrated a conscious indifference and utter disregard of their effects upon the

health and safety of others, including the Plaintiffs decedent, Matilda Quintero

COUNT I

(Negligence and Egregious Negligence against Defendant Colgan,)

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior and subsequent allegations of thisComplaint.

45. Matilda Quintero, on February 12, 2009, was an employee of Defendant, Colgan,working on board Continental Connection Flight 3407, enroute from Newark, New Jersey to

Buffalo, New York.

46. Defendant, Colgan, owed a duty to Matilda Quintero, to conduct operations safelyas not to jeopardize the health and lives of their employees. Defendant, Colgan violated this

duty, and was negligent, careless, reckless, willful and wanton, including but not limited to the

following particulars:

a. failed to ensure the pilots on Flight 3407 had proper training.



11/22

- 11

b. failed to provide enough supervisory pilots to ensure safety of Defendantsnew fleet of Q400 aircraft

c. failed to address numerous safety issues previously identified by the FAA,including but not limited to, airspeed limitation compliance, incorrect use

of the automated control system, and incorrect communications

procedures

d. failed to provide an adequate safety feedback structuree. failed to keep current safety manualsf. failed to have a complete operation manual for the Q400 aircraftg. failed to ensure pilots were trained on recognition and response to stick

shaker

h. failed to monitor proper crew rest for their pilotsi. failed to provide adequate procedures for airspeed selection and

management during approaches in icy conditions

j. failed to ensure pilots were adequately trained on sterile cockpit conceptk. failed to equip the Q400 with low speed awareness indicatorsl. failed to provide adequate CRM training to their pilotsm. failed to ensure captains had adequate leadership and management

training

n. failed to effectively monitor and enforce their policy of flight crews notusing the crew room for overnight rest

o. failed to monitor and prevent crews from long commutes preceding crewmember duty time



12/22

- 12

p. failed to provide an adequate fatigue management policyq. failed to proactively address the training and proficiency defects of their

pilots

r. failed to monitor pilots with known deficienciess. failed to keep adequate and accurate records of pilot trainingt. failed to provide adequate and well trained flight instructors and check

airmen, and/or

u. failed to implement the flight operational quality assurance program47. Defendant, Colgan, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known,

that the negligent, careless, reckless, willful and wanton acts, listed in Paragraph 46, would result

in injury or death to their employees, to a substantial certainty.

48. The death of Matilda Quintero was more than the mere fact of life of industrialemployment and was the result of the Defendant Colgans negligent, careless, reckless, willful

and wanton conduct as stated in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

COUNT II

(Negligence Against Defendants Colgan, Continental and Pinnacle)

49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior and subsequent allegations in thisComplaint.

50. At all relevant times herein, defendants Colgan, Continental and Pinnacle wereauthorized common carriers by air transportation and owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs decedent

to operate and maintain the aircraft with the utmost of care and to the highest degree of safety.

51. By reason of their inter-relationship and the Marketing Alliance Code ShareAgreement dated July1, 1997 between Colgan and Continental, the rights and obligations of



13/22

- 13

which were assumed by Defendant Pinnacle when it acquired Defendant Colgan, said

Defendants acted in concert, each as the agent and/or principal of the others, for the purposes of

their joint and several use and operation of Civil Aircraft N200WQ on February 12, 2009, as

Continental Connection Flight 3407 and their joint and several employment and training of the

pilots of Continental Connection Flight 3407.

52. The crash of continental Connection Flight 3407 and resulting death of Plaintiffsdecedent as aforesaid were proximately caused through no fault of the decedent by joint and

several negligence, careless acts and omissions, wrongful acts and omissions, wanton and willful

acts and omissions, recklessness and dereliction of duty of Defendants Colgan, Pinnacle and

Continental and, further, by their failure to take all necessary means to avoid the crash and fatal

injuries to Plaintiffs decedent, accordingly, each of the said Defendants is jointly and severally

liable to Plaintiff for the death and injury to his decedent.

53. At all times herein relevant, defendants, and each of them, negligently, carelessly,wantonly and recklessly operated, maintained, controlled, inspected, serviced, repaired, loaded,

dispatched, scheduled, and monitored flight 3407 and had negligently, carelessly, and recklessly

trained flight crews, including the crew of flight 3407. Further, defendants, and each of them,

negligently, carelessly, and recklessly leased and/or purchased the N200WQ for the purpose to

which it was operated as flight 3407 on February 12, 2009.

54. On February 12, 2009, defendants, and each of them, negligently, carelessly,wantonly and recklessly dispatched, operated, and flew flight 3407 into icing conditions knowing

said aircraft was inadequately equipped with ineffective de-icing equipment, and had negligently

failed to train the crew of flight 3407 to operate the aircraft in such circumstances.



14/22


15/22

- 15

unreasonably dangerous as that term is defined in law to persons, including Plaintiffs

decedent, who could reasonably be expected to use or benefit from it, and which

defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions were a direct and proximate cause of

Plaintiffs damages, The subject aircraft was also defective by reason of such

defendants failure to include or place with it adequate warnings and instructions as to

dangers associated with the design and foreseeable maintenance and use of the products

and how to avoid such dangers, and which defects rendered the subject aircraft

unreasonably dangerous and a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and

damages.

59. Defendants are aerospace manufacturers who hold themselves out to thepublic as having superior knowledge, skill and experience in the design, construction,

assembly, manufacture, testing, maintenance and preparation of flight and maintenance

manuals, and inspection of transport category aircraft and their components, and, in the

course of business as an aerospace manufacturer, defendants designed, constructed,

assembled, manufactured, inspected, tested, published flight operation and maintenance

manuals, and caused to be certified under Part 25 of the federal Aviation Regulations the

Dash 8-Q400 model transport category aircraft, including N200WQ, which defendants

expressly and impliedly warranted was fit for its intended purpose use as a vehicle in air

transportation, being airworthy and free of unreasonably dangerous defects; and, further,

defendant marketed, sold, distributed and caused to be introduced N200WQ into the

stream of commerce by sale or lease to Continental, Pinnacle and/or Colgan.



16/22

- 16

60. The uncontrolled flight and crash alleged herein and the injury, damage,and death of Plaintiffs decedent were proximately caused and/or substantially

contributed to by each of the foregoing enumerated defects.

61. Defendants actions were wanton and reckless and demonstrated aconscious indifference and utter disregard of their effects upon the health and safety of

others, including the Plaintiffs decedent, Matilda Quintero.

Count III

(Negligence Against Defendants Bombardier)

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior and subsequent allegations ofthis Complaint.

63. At all times herein relevant, defendants, and each of them, so negligently,carelessly, wantonly and recklessly designed, manufactured, tested, and marketed the

aircraft and its component parts, systems, manuals, instructions, and warnings so as to

have causes the loss of control and crash of flight 3407. Defendants knew, or in the

exercise of ordinary care should have known, that aircraft and its component parts,

systems, manuals, instructions, and warnings were defective and unreasonably dangerous

to those persons likely to use the products for the purposes and in the manner for which

they were intended to be used and for the purposes reasonably foreseeable to such

defendants, including the purpose for which N200WQ was used on February 12, 2009.

Defendants were negligent in the particulars set forth in this and the preceding

paragraphs, among other reasons, and said negligence was a proximate cause of the

occurrence made the basis of this suit and Plaintiffs injuries and damages.



17/22

- 17

64. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known,of the means of designing, testing or equipping the subject aircraft, manuals, de-icing

system, and flight control systems, such that the type of incident and resulting injuries as

described herein would be prevented. Defendants had actual knowledge of the means of

designing and testing an aircraft, manuals and flight control systems, including but not

limited to a system that would provide pilots with adequate warnings of dangerously low

airspeeds, approaching stalls or imminent stalls, such that They would not be inadequate

or unreasonably dangerous. Defendants were additionally negligent in that they failed to

give adequate or proper warnings or instructions to ordinary users thereof, including

Continental, Pinnacle, Colgan and Plaintiffs decedent, and failed to recall or timely

recall the products or make appropriate post-marketing efforts to prevent incidents such

as the one included herein.

65. Defendants owed Plaintiffs decedent the duty of reasonable care indesigning, manufacturing, testing, and marketing the products in question. Defendants

violated their duty and were negligent, said negligence including those acts of omission

or commission previously described. This defendants negligent acts, collectively and/or

severally, were a proximate cause or causes of the accident made the basis of this suit, the

injury to and death of decedent, and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.

66. The defective condition and consequent crash of the aircraft wereproximately caused by the negligence, wrongdoing, tortuous conduct, careless wanton

and reckless acts and omissions of said defendants in design, manufacture, assembly,

construction, testing, inspection, certification, marketing, monitoring, and sale of the

aircraft and in their failure to warn of and take appropriate remedial action with respect to



18/22

- 18

a known and dangerously defective condition. Defendants actions were done knowingly

and intentionally, wanton and reckless and demonstrated a conscious indifference and

utter disregard of their effects upon the health and safety of others, including the

Plaintiffs decedent, Matilda Quintero.

COUNT IV

(Breach of Express and Implied Warranty Against Defendants Bombardier)


68. Defendants, by and through the sale of the products in question, expresslyand impliedly warranted to the public generally, and to the Plaintiffs decedent

specifically, that the products in question were fit for the purposes for which they were

intended.

69. Plaintiffs decedent made use of the products as alleged herein, and reliedon the express and implied warranties.

70. Contrary thereto, the products were not fit for their intended andforeseeable uses, thereby rendering the products in question unreasonably dangerous.

71. Defendants breached their express and implied warranties because of theproducts failure and defective components as alleged herein, and because of the

improper marketing involving defendants failure to warn of the products inadequacies

or defects and failure to instruct in the safe operation and maintenance of the products

72. Defendants breach of warranties and the above-mentioned defectsrendered the products unreasonably dangerous and a proximate cause and producing

cause of the occurrence in question and the resulting injuries suffered by Plaintiffs.



19/22

- 19

Further, defendants conduct was done knowingly, intentionally and was wanton and

reckless and demonstrated a conscious indifference and utter disregard of their effects

upon the health and safety of others, including the Plaintiffs decedent, Matilda Quintero.

73. The crash of the aircraft and death of Plaintiffs decedent was proximatelycaused and/or substantially contributed to by defendants breach of express and implied

warranties of the said aircrafts fitness for use and defendants breach of its

representations that the Dash-8 Q400 model aircraft, and, in particular Dash-8, were free

of unreasonably dangerous defects in design and/or manufacture.

74. As a member of the traveling public, Plaintiffs decedent relied to herdetriment upon defendants express and implied representations of safety and fitness for

the use to which it was put on February 12, 2009.

75. As a direct and proximate cause of the breach of each warranty, N200WQwas caused to, and did, crash, causing the injuries, death, and damages complained

herein.

COUNT V

(Negligence against Defendant FlightSafety International)


77. Upon information and belief, the Defendant FSI conducts and operates aflight school for the instruction and training of professional pilots.

78. Upon information and belief, in March 2008, the Defendant FSI providedtraining and instruction to Colgan employee Rebecca Shaw, the First Officer on



20/22

- 20

Continental Connection Flight 3407, as to the operation of the Dash8-Q400 aircraft, at

FSIs Toronto Learning Center in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

79. Upon information and belief, in November 2008, Colgan employeeMarvin Renslow, the Captain on Continental Connection Flight 3407, was trained and

instructed in the operation of the Dash 8-Q400 aircraft at FSIs St. Louis Training Center

in St. Louis, Missouri, on a simulator owned and operated by FSI.

80. Upon information and belief, Defendant FSI designed the aforesaidtraining programs and simulator(s) used therein that were provided to Rebecca Shaw and

Marvin Renslow in the course of their employment with Colgan.

81. Upon information and belief, the crash of Continental Connection Flight3407 was proximately caused by the negligence, careless acts and omissions, wrongful

acts and omissions, wanton and willful acts and omissions, and recklessness and

dereliction of duty of Defendant FSI in instructing and training Rebecca Shaw and

Marvin Renslow and/or its creation and/or design of the aforesaid programs of instruction

and training.

82. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant FSI proximately caused the fatalcrash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 and the resulting injuries and damages to

Plaintiffs decedent.

83. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant FSI is liable to Plaintiff forcompensatory damages in a sum that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts

which would otherwise have jurisdiction and for punitive damages; Plaintiff will seek

damages in an amount to be proven and determined at the time of trial.



21/22

- 21

COUNT VI

(Negligent Performance of a Contractual Duty against Defendant

FlightSafety International)


85. The crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 and resulting death of Plaintiffsdecedent as aforesaid were proximately caused through no fault of the decedent by the

negligence, careless acts and omissions, wrongful acts and omissions, wanton and willful acts

and omissions, recklessness and dereliction of duty of Defendant FSI, acting by and through its

officers, agents, servants, and employees, while affirmatively discharging its contractual

obligations pursuant to its contract(s) with Defendants Colgan, Pinnacle and/or Continental.

86. More specifically, in rendering services pursuant to its contract(s) withDefendants Colgan, Pinnacle and/or Continental, Defendant FSI created an unreasonable risk of

harm to others, increased a risk of harm to others, created a dangerous condition, and/or

exacerbated a dangerous condition.

87. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs decedent and other ContinentalConnection Flight 3407 passengers relied upon FSIs performance of its contractual obligations.

88. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant FSI launched a force and/or instrument ofharm and was a proximate cause of the fatal crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 and the

resulting injuries and damages to Plaintiffs decedent.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, jointly and severally,

as follows:

1. For compensatory damages as allowed by law for the wrongful death ofdecedent, in an amount according to proof at trial.



22/22

2. For damages arising from the pre-impact physical pain and suffering, andmental anguish of Plaintiffs decedent.

3. For funeral, burial, and related expenses according to proof;4. For property damage and loss of use of property according to proof;5. For punitive damages as allowed by law;6. For pre-judgment interest as provided by law;7. For costs of suits incurred herein and attorneys fees as allowed by law;8. That all issue of fact in this matter be determined by a jury;9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Dated this 4th day of February 2011Respectfully submitted,

By: s/Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick

Fidelma L. FitzpatrickAttorney for PlaintiffMotley Rice LLC275 Seventh Ave., 2nd floorNew York, NY 10001Tel. (401) 457-7728Fax (401) 457-7708

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

POIDOMANI v. BOMBARDIER, INC. et al Complaint

Documents

Transcript of POIDOMANI v. BOMBARDIER, INC. et al Complaint