INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES INC Et Al v. COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT Et Al Complaint

3:09-cv-00210-MJP Date Filed 01/27/09 Entry Number 1-1 Page 5 of 32
",
,,'
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )

) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF RICHLAND ) FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO.: 08~CP-40-

and GLOBAL EXEC AVIATION, INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) SUMMONS
v. ) "'"
'!:":::I
t;:';')
c.::.!)
) CJ
C) r::;l;"';"?';'I
~-,'1 ii ;;
COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN ) b ('") :-,..",'0'..1
AIRPORT; RICHLAND~LEXINGTON .) C? 1') r:~"!'\"
w
AIRPORT DISTRICT; LEARJET INC.; )
f.1'' ,.',il·'n
~ .i :.1
BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CORP.; ) G)
-0
01~
-""
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; and ) (,r; V~"""
, "
f',) 'b,.;,~J.
DOES #1 - 3D, )
) 1.0
Def~ndants. )
)
'To: THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE-NAMED:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action, a
copy of which .is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer on the ,subscribers at
"their offices, 1501 Main Street, 5th -Floor, Columbia, SC '29201 or Post Office Box 2285, 'Columbia,
SC 29202, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of service; and if-you
fail to answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid, Plaintiffs will apply to the court for judgment
by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
(Signature on Next Page)

""": ,"'~
STA.TE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF RICHLAND FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO.: 08-CP-40-

and GLOBAL EXEC AVIATION, INC., )
]' ,
....
f.::-';:)
(~ -..
) c..,'J
C":l r::'J ~~~-n

Plaintiffs, ) .'1 ti
) COMPLAINT g CJ "
. -,
I; ''';'.. 'T?
1'0 .- ~I
~ ) (Jury Trial Demanded) ~ c.,:,

) .'.
..
r.l.~.'
G) U J .- ;
COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN ) :..:::
AIRPORT; RICHLAND-LEXINGTON )
U)
N t::::~
AIRPORT DISTRICT; LEARJET INC.;· ) 'i:J
BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CORP.; )
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; and )
DOES #1 - 3D, )
)
Defendants. )
)
COME NOW Plaintiffs INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES, INC ..("ITAS") and GLOBAL EXEC
AVIATION', LLC (,'GLOBAL EXEC"), by and through their attorneys Ellis, Lawhorne & Sims P.A..,·
compl~ining of Defendants COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT; RICHLAND-LEXINGTON
AIRPORT DISTRICT; LEARJET, INC.; BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CORPORATION;
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; and DOES #1 - 3D, as folloWS:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff GLOBAL EXEC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its ,principal
place of business in Long Beach, California. As of September 19, 2008, and at all times
relevant hereto, GLOBAL EXEC operated a Learjet Model 60 aircraft, serial number 314, FAA
Registration No. N999LJ (the "Aircraft") as a chartered aircraft and expected to, and did, receive
.substantial revenue from the charter operations of the Aircraft. As of September 19, 2008, and
.at all times relevant hereto, GLOBAL EXEC was .a contractual bailee and ,mana,ger of the
Aircraft for remuneration. As of September 19, 2008, and at all times re'levant hereto, GLOBAL
EXEC and the Aircraft were duly licensed under applicable law.
2. Plaintiff ITAS Is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Irvine, California. As of September 19, 2008,·and at all relevant times hereto, ITAS
was the owner of the Aircraft and expected to, and did, receive substantial revenue from the
charter operations of the Aircraft. As of September 19, 2008, and at all times relevant hereto,
ITAS and the Aircraft were duly licensed under applicable law.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT
is operated by Defendant RICHLAND"LEXINGTON AIRPORT DISTRICT, a political subdivision
of the State of South Carolina. S.C. Code § 55"11-310. Together these two defendants are
referred to collectively herein as the "Airport Defendants." Plaintiffs bring suit against the Airport
Defendants pursuant .to 'the South Carolina Tort Claims 'Act, S. C. Code Ann. § 15-78-10 et seq.
Jurisdiction and venue in this Court are proper as to the Airport Defendant~ pursuant 'to section
15"78-100(b) of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act in that the actions and/or omissions of the
Airport Defendants that form the basis for Plaintiffs' suit against them occurred primarily or
solely in Richland and/or Lexington Counties, South Carolina. Upon information and belief, the
Airport Defendants, either separately or through the Richland-Lexington Airport Commission,
were responsible 'for the design, construction, operation, .maintenance, upkeep, accreditation,
and safety of the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, and were also responsible for ensuring the
safety of aircraft, crew and passengers which/who made use of such facilities.
4. Upon information and belief, LEARJET, INC. ("LEARJET") is a Delaware
'corporation with its principal place of business in Wichita, Kansas, and is a subsidiary of
BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CORPORATION ("BOMBARDIER"). Jurisdiction in this .action
exists as to LEARJET in that it caused tortious injury in the State of South Carolina In causing
the Accident, and It regularly does or solicits business, engages in persistent courses of
conduct, and derives substantial revenue from g'oods used or consumed or service rendered in
.the .State of South Carolina, Including, upon information and belief, providing goods and
services to a major Learjet/Bombardier operator and through 'a Learjet/Bombardier authorized
2 12323307.1
maintenance center in the State of South Carolina. Jurisdiction in this action also exists as to
LEARJET in that it produced, manufactured, or distributed Its goods (Le., Learjet airoraft) with
the reasonable expectation that those goods would be used or consumed in the State of South
Carolina, including Richland and Lexington Counties, and such goods were so used and
consumed in the state.
5. LEARJET and DOES 1~10, land each of them, designed, manufactured,
assembled, tested, inspected, sold, distributed and marketed the Aircraft and/or its component
parts, and also wrote, created, designed, approved, sold, distributed and marketed manuals,
warning.s and other technical information regarding the Aircraft and/or its component parts.
6. Upon information and belief, BOMBARDIER is a Delaware corporation and/or a
. corporation created and existing under the laws of Canada, with its principal place of bUsiness
in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Jurisdiction in this action exists as to BOMBARDIER in that it
caused tortious injury in the State of South Carolina in causing the Accident, and it regularly
does or solicits business, engages In persistent courses of conduct, and derives substantial
revenue .from ,goods used or consumed or service tendered in the State of South· Carolina,
including, upon .information and belief, providing goods and services to a major
Bombardier/Learjet operator and through a Bombardier/Learjet authorized maintenance center
in the State of South Carolina. Jurisdiction in this action also exists as to BOMBARDIER in that
it produceod, manufactured, or distributed i.ts goods (I.e., Learjet aircraft) with the reasonable
expectation that those goods would be used or consumed in the State of South Carolina,
including Richland and Lexington Counties, and suc~ goods were so used and consumed in the
state.
7.. BOMBARDIER and DOES 11.,20, and each of them, designed, manufactured,
assembled, tested, inspected, sold, distributed and marketed the Aircraft and/or its component
parts, and also wrote, created, designed, approved, sold, distributed and marketed manuals,
warnings and other technical information regarding the Aircraft and/or its component parts.
3 12323307.1
8. Upon information and belief, GOODYEAR TIRE ~ RUBBER CO. ("GOODYEAR")
is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Akron, Ohio, and a registered agent
for service of process at Corporation Service Company, 1703 Laurel Street, Columbia, SC
29201. In addition to maintaining a registered agent for service of process in the state,
jurisdiction in this action exists as to GOODYEAR in that it caused tortious injury in the State of
South Carolina in causing the Accident, and it regularly does or solicits business, engages in
persistent courses of conduct, and derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed
or service rendered in the State of South Carolina, including, upon information and belief,
providing good~ and services to a major Bombardier/Learjet operator and through a
Bombardier/Learjet authorized maintenance center In the State of South Carolina. Jurisdiction
in this action also exists as to GOODYEAR in that it produced, manufactured, or distributed its
,
goods (Le., Learjet aircraft tires) with the reasonable expectation that those goods would be
used or consumed in the State of South Carolina, including Richland and Lexington Counties,
and such goods were so used and consumed in the state.
. 9. GOODYEAR and DOES 21-30, and each of them, designed, manufactured,
assembled, tested, inspected, sold, distributed and marketed aircraft parts, including but not
limited to the tires installed on the Aircraft, and also wrote, created, designed, approved, sold,
distributed and marketed manuals, warnings and other technical information regarding such
parts.
10. The true identities of Defendants sued as DOES 1-30 are as yet unknown to
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true identities of Defendants sued as
DOES 1-30 when the same become known to Plaintiffs.
11. Defendants LEARJET, BOMBARDIER, GOODYEAR and DOES 1-30 are
collectively referred to herein as the "Aircraft Defendants."
4 12323307.1
12. All of the Defendants were at all relevant times the agents of one another, or
were otherwise joint-tortfeasors or joint-obligors, related to the matters and events underlying
Plaintiffs' claims.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
13. On September 19, 2008, at approximately 11 :53 p.m. EDT, the Aircraft was
attempting to take off from Runway 11 at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport when, at a
substantial rate of speed, it experienced a sudden, catastrophic and calamitous failure of

. .
several critical components and systems, including but not limited to a number of critical
switches and warning systems, its brakes and braking systems, .its thrust reversers and
associated systems, its digital engine and/or flight controls, its fuel .cells, .and all four main
. f .
landing gear tires. Thereafter, in a matter of seconds, the Aircraft departed the end of the
runway, ran through a variety of airport equipment, the runway safety overrun area, and the
airport perimeter fence, traveled across a roadway, struck an embankment on the other side,
and burst into flames, destroYing the Aircraft, killing both members of the flight crew and two
passengers, and injurln.g two .other passengers. This sequence of events is referred to
.ge.ne~aJly .her~in ·a.s t~~ ."6ccident~. " ....
14. Upon information and belief, both members of the flight crew, pilot Sarah
Lemmon and First Officer James Bland, survived the initial impact with the embankment but
perished thereafter due to smoke inhalation and thermal burns. Two of the passengers, Charles
Still and Chris Baker, are reported to have died on impact with the embankment, and the two
remaining passengers, Travis Barker and Adam Goldstein, a/kfa "DJ AM," are reported to have
escaped from the flaming wreckage with burn injuries.
15. At the time of the Accident the Aircraft was less than two years old and had
accumulated less than 125 flIght hours.
5 12323301.1
THE AIRCRAFT DEFENDANTS

16. The Aircraft, its component parts and systems and associated warnings,
instructions and manuals, were designed, manufactured, sold and marketed by LEARJET,
BOMBARDIER and/or DOES 1~20. The tires and/or other component parts on the Aircraft, and
associated warnings, instructions and other technical materials, were designed, manufactured,
sold and marketed by GOODYEAR and/or DOES 21-30. At all times relevant hereto,
LEARJET, BOMBARDIER, GOODYEAR and/or DOES 1-30 (the "Aircraft Defendants")
breached their common law, regulatory and statutory duties of cafe to, among others, Plaintiffs,
the flight crew, the passengers, the FAA, and the public in designing, manufacturing, selling,
distributing and marketing the Aircraft.and/or its component parts and systems, and associated
instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical information with known, unreasonably
dangerous defects posing a risk of property damage, serious bodily injury or death to the
Aircraft's passengers, crew and others, which defects proximately resulted in the Accident, the
destruction of the Aircraft, the il1juries and/or loss of life ·to the crew and passengers, and
substantial,andcontinuin,g damage to Plaintiffs, as alleged further below.
17. The Aircraft Defendants also materially misrepresented the safety and
airworthiness of the Aircraft and its components, and the correctness, completeness, accuracy
and safety of associated instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical documentation, as
alleged further below.
18. The Aircraft Defendants' acts, 'omissions and misrepresentations violated
common law, regulatory and statutory duties to Plaintiffs, the flight crew, the passengers, the
FAA, and the public in that the Aircraft Defendants:
(a) improperly, negligently and unlawfully engineered, designed, manufactured,

, '
distributed and marketed the Aircraft and its component parts and systems, including but 'not
limited to its brakes and braking systems, warning systems, landing gear, tires, squat .switches,
thrust reversers, digital engine and/or ·flight controls, 'fuel cells, and associated instructions,
6 12323307.1
warnings, manuals and other technical documentation with potentially fatal, known and
unreasonably dangerous defects, including defects related to the "crashworthiness" of the
Aircraft;
(b) improperly, negligently and unlawfully misrepresented to Plaintiffs, the flight crew,
the passengers, the public, and the FAA that the Aircraft and its component parts and systems,
including but not limited to its brakes and braking systems, warning systems, landing gear, tires,
squat switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or flight controls, fuel cells, and associated
instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical documentation, were merchantable, safe,
airworthy, cOf!lpliant with industry standards, and capable of proper certification under the
Federal Aviation Regulations and other applicab'.e law;
(c) improperly, negligently and unlawfully failed to correct known and unreasonably
dangerous defects, in the design and/or manufacture of the Aircraft and its component parts and
, .
systems, including but not limited to its brakes and braking systems, warning systems, landing
gear, tires, squat switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or flight controls, fuel cells, and
associated instructions, warnings, manuals and other techni~al documentation;
(d) improperly, negligently and unlawfully failed to warn Plaintiffs, operators, users,
flight crews, training personnel and other consumers of the Learjet model '60 of the aircraft's
unreas'onably dangerous propensities, including but not limited to the potentially fatal defects in
the design and/or manufacture of the Aircraft and its component parts and systems, including
but not limited to its brakes and braking ~ystems, warning systems, landing gear, tires, squat
switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or flight controls, fuel cells, and associated
instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical documentation;
(e) improperly, negligently and unlawfully failed to undertake the repair, replacement
and/or recall 'of Learjet 60 aircraft and/or components containing such design, manufacturing
and/or marketing defects;
(f) 'failed to adhere to their own Internal and regulatorily-required safety and quality
7 12323307.1
assurance policies and procedures and technical repair and engineering documents and
standards; and
(g) failed to adhere to applicable law, including without limitation various provisions
of 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 25 and S.C. Code § 55-5-90.
19. The Aircraft Defendants' acts, omissions and misrepresentations were negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless and/or willful in that, without limitation, they:
(a) were aware of prior incidents (including one involving LEARJET's own prototype
of the model 60) demonstrating potentially fatal unreasonably dangerous defects in the design,
manufacture and/or. marketing of the Learjet 60 model aircraft - 'including but not limited to
potentially fatal .defects in the aircraft's brakes and braking systems, warning systems, landing
gear, tires, squat switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or flight controls, fuel cells, and
associated instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical documentation - yet 'failed to
take appropriate steps to remedy such known defects;
(b) failed to warn Plaintiffs, operators, users, flight crews, training personnel and
other consumers of the Learjet model 60' of the aircraft's and/or its component parts and
systems' unreasonably dangerous propensities, as described above;
(c) continued to represent to Plaintiffs, the public, and the FAA that the Learjet
model 60 aircraft and its component parts and systems as described above were airworthy,
crashworthy and capable of proper certification under, inter alia, 14 C.F.R Parts 21 and 25,
despite having knowledge of the potentially fatal, unreasonably dangerous defects in 'the
design, manufacture and/or marketing of the Learjet 60 model and its components, as described
above;
(d) failed to undertake the repair, replacement and/or recall of Learjet 60 aircraft aDd
components containing such desi~n, manufacture and/or marketing defects despite knowledge'
of other .incidents demonstrating such propensities,;
(e) failed to adhere to their own, internal and regulatorily-required safety and quality
8 12323307.1
assurance policies and procedures and technical and engineering documents and standards.
20. The Aircraft Defendants' material misrepresentations were negligent, grossly
negligent and reckless and included, without limitation, misrepresentations that:
(a) the Aircraft Defendants possessed the engineering, design and manufacturing
expertise, experience and methodology to properly, professionally and legally design,
manufacture, sell and/or market a safe, crashworthy and airworthy aircraft and/or aircraft
component parts, when they did not;
(b) the Aircraft Defendants' design, manufacturing and/or marketing work on the
Aircraft and Its component parts was being performed in acco~dance with Defendants' own, and
commercial aviation industry, safety and quality assurance policies and procedures and
Defendants' technical and engineering documents and standards, when it was not;
(c) the Aircraft and its component parts were merchantable and fit for their intended
purpose(s), when they were not;
(d) the Aircraft and-Its component parts were "safe," when they were not;
(e) the Aircraft and its component parts'Were "airworthy,': when they were not;
(f) the Aircraft was "crashworthy," when it was not;
(g) the design and -manufacture of the Aircraft, its component parts and their
associated warnings, instructions and manuals rendered them compliant with applicable Federal
Aviation Regulations, when they were not in compliance;
(h) the design and manufacture of the Aircraft, its component parts and their
associated warnings, instructions and manuals rendered them complicmt with other applicable
law, when they were not in compliance;
(I) Plaintiffs, flight crews, and passengers could use and/or operate the Aircraft and
its component parts safely, When they could not.
21. The Aircraft Defendants' acts and omissions, and their misrepresentations, left
the Aircraft, its component parts and associated warnings, instructions and manuals defective,
9 12323307.1
unreasonably dangerous, unsafe, unairworthy, un-crashworthy and non-compliant with industry
standards, manufacturer's specifications and law and, less than two years and 125 flight hours
after the Aircraft was manufactured, caused the sudden, unexpected, oatastrophic destruction of
the Aircraft, the loss of four lives and injury to two others, and substantial and continuing
damages to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to loss of value of the Aircraft Itself, loss of
revenues from charter operations, business interruption, damage to reputation and associated
economic losses.
22. By reason of these negligent, grossly negligent, reckless and/or willful acts and
o~issions on. the part of the Aircraft Defendants, and the c:jefective, unreasonabl.y dangerous
condition of the Aircraft - which acts, omissions

.' . and defects created a risk of, and actual,
serious injury or death to foreseeable.users of the Aircraft - Plaintiffs have been damaged in an
amount to .be proven at trial but which is no less. than $12,000,000.00, together with
prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, as alleged further below.
Plaintiffs' elements of direct damage include, without limitation, the complete loss of the Aircraft,
loss of revenues from o~arter operations, business interruption, damage to reputation and
associated economic' losses and, 'potentially, indemnity and/or contribution damages stemming
from related litigation which may be pursued against Plaintiffs.
THE AIRPORT DEFENDANTS
23. Defendants COLUMBIA METR.OPOLITAN AIRPORT and the RICHLAND-
LEXINGTON AIRPORT DISTRICT (the "Airport Defendants"), either separately or through the
Richland-Lexington Airport Commission, owed non-delegable statutory, regulatory and/or
common law duties of care to, among others, Plaintiffs, the flight crew, the passengers, and the
FAA to design, operate, maintain, and certify the safeW of the Columbia Metropolitan Airport,
and were also responsible for ensuring the safety of aircraft, crew and passengers which/who
made use of such facilities. See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. Part 139 and S.C. Code § 55-1'1-340. The
Airport Defendants negligently breached such duties in falling to properly design, construct,
10 12323307.1
operate, maintain and ensure the continUing safety and certification of the Columbia
Metropolitan Airport and its runways. As a result and because of such breaches, the Aircraft's
tires blew out while the flight crew were attempting to take off from Runway 11; the Aircraft was
unable to stop within the remaining runway distance; the runway overrun area was insufficient to
arrest the forward momentum of the Aircraft; the airport equipment and fencing punctured the
Aircraft's fuel cells; the lowered roadway at the airport's perimeter caused the Aircraft to plow
nose-first into a raised embankment and; as a result of the escaping fuel, the Aircraft burst into
flames, killing' the crew and two passengers, injuring the remaining two passengers, and
completely destroying the Aircraft.
.24. .By reason of such negligent acts and omissions on the part of the Airport
Defendants - which acts and omissions created a risk of serious injury or death to foreseeable
users of the airport - Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to' be proven at trial but which
is 'no less than $12,000,000.00, together. with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, as
aHeged further below. Plaintiffs' elements of direct damage include, without limitation, the
complete loss of the aircraft,loss of revenues from charter operations, business interruption,
damage to reputation and associated economic losses.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence/Negligence' Per Se Against Airport Defendants)
25. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set' forth in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length here.
26. The Airport Defendants, either separately or through the Richland-Lexington
Airport Commission, possessed non-delegable common law, statutory, and regulatory duties to
Plaintiffs with respect to the design, construction, operation, maintenance, federal certification
and continuing safety of the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, Its runwClYs and environs, .and the
procedures by which airport personnel directed, controlled and protected ground traffic within
those environs, and was also responsible for ensuring the safety of aircraft, crew and
passengers which/who made use of such ·facilities.
11 12323307.1
27. PlaintIffs' damages were caused by the Airport Defendants' several breaches of
the above-referenced duties, as descrIbed more fully above.
28. By reason of the Airport Defendants' several breaches of duties, Plaintiffs have
been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no less than $12,000,000.00,
together with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, as alleged further below.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below in its prayer for relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Premises Liability Against Airport Defendants)
29. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
30. Charged as they were with operating a public airport facility inviting third-parties
to use the premises for the benefit of the Airport Defendants, the Airport Defendants owed non-
delegable duties to all such foreseeable invitees, inC?luding but not limited to Plaintiffs and the
passengers and crew of the Aircraft, to exercise due car~ to discover risks to such invitees,
warn of such risks, and/or eliminate such risks. in order .to keep the airport premises in a
. reasonably safe condition for the use of such invitees. However, as described above, ihe
Airport Defendants,. either separately or through the Richland-Lexington Airport Commission,
failed to design, construct, inspect, warn, or maintain the airport in a reasonably safe condition
by, inter alia, negligently, wrongfully and unlawfully designing, building, operating, and
maintaining the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, its runways and environs, in such a condition
that they posed an unreasonable risk of property damage, serious bodily injury or death to
foreseeable invitees, including Plaintiffs and the crew and passengers of the Aircraft.
31. Plaintiffs' damages were caused by the Airport Defendants' several breaches of
the above-referenced duties, as described more fully above.
32. By reason of the Airport Defendants' several breaches of duties, Plaintiffs have
been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no less than .$12,000,000.00,
together with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, as alleged further below.
12 12323307.1
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Misrepresentation Against Airport Defendants)
paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth .at length here.
34. The Airport Defendants, either separately or through the Richland-Lexington
Airport Commission, falsely misrepresented to Plaintiffs, to the flight crew and passengers of the
Aircraft, to the FAA and to the public that the Columbia Metropolitan Airport, and its runways
and environs, were properly designed, constructed, operated, maintained, accredited, and
certified, and that the airport could safely be used for its foreseeable and intended purposes
(Le., aircraft landing, taxi, takeoff and associated services). The Airport Defendants .had
peculiar knowledge pertaining to the substance of these representations.
35' The Airport Defendants had a pecuniary interest in making such statements in -
that the FAA would not have certified the airport, and Plaintiffs and other' intended users would
!lot have used it, had the true, non-compliant and unsafe con~ition(s) of the airport been known
to them.
36. The Airport Defendants possessed non-delegable common law, statutory,
regulatory and other duties to Plaintiff, to the passengers and crew of the Aircraft, to the FAA,
and to the public to provide correct, sufficient, safe and regulatorily-compliant information about
the airport and its runway and environs: However, the Airport Defendants breached such
various duties by failing to properly design, construct, operate, maintain, accredit, and certify the
airport and in failing to provide information to Plaintiffs, the FAA, the flight crew and passengers
of the Aircraft, and the public information about the unsafe condition(s) of the airport and its
runways and environs. Such failures created a substantial.risk of property damage and .serious
bodily injury or death to foreseeable users of the airport, including Plaintiffs, the flight crew and
the passengers, and rendered the airport and Its runways and environs unreasonably
dangerous.
13 12323307.1
37. Plaintiffs, the flight crew and the passengers of the Aircraft, justifiably relied on
the Airport Defendants' misrepresentations - to their detriment - in utilizing the Columbia
Metropolitan Airport, its runways and environs, Its services, and its Airport Traffic Control
guidance.
38. The unreasonably dangerous, and potentially fatal, nature of the Airport
Defendants' misrepresentations created a substantial risk of property damage and serious injury
or death to foreseeable users of the airport, including Plaintiffs and the flight crew and
passengers of the Aircraft.
39. As a result of their reliance on the aforementioned misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no less than
$12,000,000.00, together with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, as alleged further
I
below.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray forjudgment as set forth below in its prayer for relief.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

'(Negligence/Negligence Per Se Against Aircraft Defendants)
(
. paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length here.
41. The Aircraft Defendants possessed 'common law, statutory, regulatory (including
under 14 C.F.R.Parts 21 and25 and S.C. Code § 55-5-90), industry standard, and other duties
to Plaintiffs and the .passengers and crew of the Aircraft to provide an airworthy, crashworthy,
safe, "non-defective, and industry standa:d- and regulatorily-compliant Aircraft, to provide
airvyorthy, crashworthy, safe, non-defective, and industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant
aircraft components and systems, and to provide correct, sufficient, safe and industry standard-
and regulatorilY-.Gompliant warnings, instructions and other technical documentation for the use
and operation of such Aircraft and components. However, as outlined in detail above, the
Aircraft Defendants breached these duties by improperly, negligently and unlawfully
engineering, designing, manufacturing, selling, distributing and marketing the Aircraft and its
14 12323307.1
component parts and systems, including but not limited to its brakes and braking systems,
warning systems, landing gear, tires, squat switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or flight
controls, fuel cells, and associated instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical
documentation, with unreasonably dangerous, potentially fatal, known defects, including but not
limited to defects related to the "crashworthiness" of the Aircraft.
42. The Aircraft Defendants' several breaches of duties created a SUbstantial risk of
property damage and serious injury or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, its component
parts and systems and associated documentation, including Plaintiffs and the flight crew and
passengers of the Airc~aft.
43. The Accident, the destruction of the Aircraft, and all damages and losses flowing
from both, including Plaintiffs' damages as alleged more fully herein, were caused by the
Aircraft Defendants' aforementioned breaches and wrongful'and/or unlawful conduct.
44. By reason of the Aircraft Defendants' several breaches of duties, Plaintiffs have
been damaged in an amount to be proven. at trial· but which is no less than $12,OOO,OOO.QO,
together with prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, as alleged
further below.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Gross Negligence/Gross Negligence Per .Se Against Aircraft Defendants)
45. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the prec~ding
paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as If fully set forth at le.ngth here.
46. The Aircraft Defendants possessed common law, statutory, regulatory (including
under 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 25 and S.C. Code § 55-5-90), industry.standard, and other duties
to Plaintiffs and the passengers and crew of the Aircraft to provide an airworthy, crashworthy,
safe, non-defective, and industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant Aircraft, to provide
airworthy, crashworthy, safe, non-defective, and industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant
aircraft components and systems, and to provide correct, sufficient, safe and industry standard-
15 12323307.1
and regulatorily~compliant warnings, instructions and other technical documentation for the use
and operation of such Aircraft and components. However, as outlined in detail above, the
Aircraft Defendants breached these duties by improperly, negligently and unlawfully
engineering, designing, manufacturing, distributing and marketing the Aircraft and its component
parts and systems, including but not limited to its brakes and braking systems, warning systems,
landing gear, tires, squat switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or flight controls, fuel
celis, and associated instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical documentation, with
unreasonably dangerous, potentially fatal, known defects, including but not limited to defects
related tq the "crashwqrthiness" of the Aircraft.
47. In light of the Aircraft Defendants' knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous and
potentially fatal propensities of the Aircraft and its component parts and systems, including but
not limited to Its brakes and braking systems, warning systems, landing gear, tires, squat
switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or .f1ight controls, fuel cells, and the insufficiency of
the warnings, instructions and othf,9r technical documentation accompanying the Aircraft and
such component part~ and systems, the Aircraft Defendants' failure to take action to cure such
defects, to recall the Aircraft, or 10 sufficiently and properly warn operators, flight crews, and
maintenance crews of the potentially fatal propensities of such defects, constitutes willfulness,
recklessness, gross negligence and/or gross negligence per se.
48. The Aircraft Defendants' several breaches of duties created a SUbstantial risk of
property damage and serious Injury or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, its component
parts and associated documentation, including Plaintiffs and 'the flight crew and passengers of
the Aircraft.
49. The Accident, the destruction of the Aircraft, and all damages and losses flowing
from both, including Plaintiffs' d'amages as alleged more fully herein, were caused by the
Aircraft Defendants' aforementioned breaches, wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.
50. By Teason of the Aircraft Defendants' several breaches of duties, Plaintiffs have
16 12323307.1
been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no less than $12,000,000.00,
together with prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, as alleged
further below.
. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACT/ON

(Strict liability - Design Defect - Against Aircraft Defendants)
paragraphs of this Complaint with tre same force and effect as if fully set forth at length here.
under 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 25 and S.C. Code § 55-5-90), industry standard, and strict liability
duties to Plaintiff and the passengers and crew of the Aircraft to provide an airworthy,
crashworthy, safe, non-defective, and industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant Aircraft, and
to provide airworthy, crashworthy, safe, non-defective, and industry standard- and regulatori!y-
. compliant aircraft components and systems. However, as outlined in detail above, -the Aircraft
Defendants breached these duties by improperly an~ unlawfully engineering, designi'!g,
assembling, inspecting, testing, selling, distributing and marketing the Aircraft and its
component parts and systems, including but not limited to .its brakes and braking systems,
warning systems,ianding gear, tires" squat switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/orilight
controls, fuel cells, with unreasonably dangerous - and potentially fatal - known defects,
including but not limited to defects related to the "crashworthiness" of the Aircraft.
53. Such unreasonably dangerous and potentially fatal defects existed at the time
the Aircraft and Its component parts and ~ystems left the possession and control of the Aircraft
Defendants, at the time'of the Accident, and at all relevant times hereto.
54. At the time of the Accident and all relevant times hereto, the Aircraft and Its
component parts 'and systems were being operated and used for the purposes and in ·the
manner for which they were designed, man·ufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, sold,
marketed and intended to be used, in a manner reasonably foreseeable to the Aircraft
17 12323307.1
Defendants and in a condition without substantial change from their original condition when sold
by the Aircraft Defendants.
55. The unreasonably dangerous, and potentially fatal, defective nature of the
Aircraft and its components and systems created a SUbstantial risk of property damage and
serious injury or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, including Plaintiffs and the flight crew
and passengers of the Aircraft.
56. The Aircraft and its component parts and systems as designed, engineered,
assembled, tested, inspect~d and 'sold with said unreasonably dangerous design defects was
capable of causing, and did in fact cause, catastrophic p'ersonal injuries and deaths to the users
and consumers of the Aircraft, including the flight crew and passengers, and the complete and
utter destruction of the Aircraft itself, along with associated losses to Plaintiffs, when being used
in a manner reasonably foreseeable .to the Aircraft Defendants.
57. By reason of such defects and the Aircraft Defendants' several breaches of
duties, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but whlch.is no less than
$12,000,000 ..00, tqgether with. prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys'
fees, as alleged further below.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Strict Liability·- Manufacturing 'Defect - Against Aircraft Defendants)
paragraphs of this Gomplaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length here.
59. The Aircraft Defendants possessed common law, statutory ,regulatory (including
under 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 25 and S.C. Code.§ 55-5-90), industry standard, and stricfliability
duties to Plaintiff and the passengers ;and crew of the Aircraft to provide an airworthy,
crashworthy, safe, non-defective, and industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant Aircraft, and
to provide airworthy, crashworthy, safe, non-defective, and industry standard- and regulatorily-
compliant aircraft components. However, as outlined in detail above, the Aircraft Defendants
18 12323307.1
;-.
breached all such duties by improperly and unlawfully manufacturing, engineering, assembling,
inspecting, testing, distributing and marketing the Aircraft and its component parts and systems,
including but not limited to its brakes and braking systems, warning systems, landing gear, tires,
squat switches, thrust reversers, digital engine and/or flight controls, fuel cells, with
unreasonably dangerous - and potentially fatal .- defects, including but not limited to defects
related to the "crashworthiness" of the Aircraft.
60. Such unreasonably dangerous and potentially fatal defects existed at the time
-the Aircraft and its component parts and systems left the possession and control of the Aircraft
Defendants, at the time of the Accident, and at all relevant times hereto.
61. At the time of the Accident and all relevant "times hereto, the Aircraft and its
component parts and systems were being operated and used for the purposes and in the
manner for 'which they were designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, sold,
Defendants and in a condition without substantial'change from their original condition when sold
by the Aircraft Defe~dants.
Aircraft and its components and systems created a substantial risk of property damage and
serious injury ,or death to foreseeable users of the' Aircraft, including Plaintiffs and the flight crew
.63. The Aircraft and its component parts and systems as manLlfactured, engineered,
assembled, tested, in~pected and sold with said unreasonably dangerous manufacturing
defects was capable of causing, and did in fact cause, catastrophic personal injuries and deaths
to the users and consumers of the Aircraft, including the flight crew and passengers, and the
complete and utter destruction .of the AIrcraft itself, along with associated losses to Plaintiffs,
when being used in a manner reasonably foreseeable to the Aircraft Defendants.
19 12323307.1
duties, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no less than
$12,000,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, oosts of suit and reasonable attorneys'
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Strict Liability - Failure To Warn - Against Aircraft Defendants)
under 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 25 and S.C. Code § 55-5-90), industry standard, and strict liability
duties to Plaintiff and the passengers ~nd crew of the Aircraft to provide correct, suffioient, safe
and industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant. warn,ings, instructions and other technioal
documentation for the use and operation of the Aircraft and its ·oollJponent parts and systems,
.including duties to warn users of the known and potentially fatal defects in same, as described
more fully above. However, .as outlined, the Aircraft ~efendants breached all such dutie~ by
failing to Issue appropriate and lawful instructions, wa'rnings, manuals and other technical
documentation to foreseeable operators .and .users of, and training personnel for, the Aircraft,
. including Plaintiffs, the flight crew of the Aircraft, and appropriate maintenance, training ·and
operational personnel. Such failures created a SUbstantial risk of property damage and serious
bodily injury or d~ath to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, including Plaintiffs, the flight crew and
the passengers,and rendered the Aircraft, its component parts and systems and accompanying
warnings, instructions, manuals and other technicai documentation defective and unreasonably
...
dangerous.
67. Such unreasonably dangerous and potentlalty fatal .defects existe.d at the time
the Aircraft, its component parts and systems and accompanying warnings, instructions,
manuals and other technical documentation left the possession and control of the Aircraft
Defendants, at the time of the Accident, and at all relevant times hereto.
20 12323307.1
68. At the time of the Accident and all relevant times hereto, the Aircraft and its
component parts and systems were being operated and used for the purposes and in the
manner for which they were designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, sold,
Defendants, in a condition without substantial change from their original condition when sold by
the Aircraft Defendants, and in compliance with all accompanying warnings, instructions,
manuals and other technical documentation.
Aircraft, its components and systems and accompanying warning~, instructiD~S, manuals and"
other technical documentation created a SUbstantial risk of property damage and serious injury
or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, including Plaintiffs and the flight crew and
passengers of the Aircraft.
70. The Aircraft, its component parts and systems, and accompanying defective
warnings, instructions, manuals and other technical documentation as designed, manufactured,
assembled, tested, inspected and sold with said "defects were capable of causing, and did In fact
cause, catastrophic personal injuries and deaths to the users and consumerS of the Aircraft,
including the flight crew and passengers, and the complete and utter destruction of the Aircraft
itself, along with associated losses to Plaintiffs, when being used in" a manner reasonably
foreseeable to the Aircraft Defendants.
duties, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no less than
$12,000,000.00, together wi~h prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorn~ys'

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray 'for judgment as set forth below in its prayer for rel1ef.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Misrepresentation Against Aircraft Defendants)
21 12323307.1
72. Plaintiffs re~allege each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as If fully set forth at length here.
73. As detailed above, the Aircraft Defendants, and each of them, falsely
misrepresented to Plaintiffs, to the flight crew and passengers of the Aircraft, to the FAA and to
the public that the Aircraft, its component parts and systems, and its .associated warnings,
instructions, manuals and other technical documentation were safe, airworthy, crashworthy,
industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant, of merchantable quali~y, fit for their intended
purpose, and properly designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, distributed, sold and/or
marketed. The Aircraft Defendants had peculiar knowledge pertaining to the substance o"f
these representations.
74. The Aircraft Defendants had a pecuniary. interest in making such statements in
that the FAA would not have certified the Aircraft, its component parts and systems ana
associated documentation, and Plaintiffs arid other intended users would not have purchased or
used the Aircraft, its component parts and systems arid associated documentation, had the true,
defective and potentially fatal nature of .such Aircraft, components and documentation been
known.
under 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 25 and S.C. Code § 55~5~90), industry standard, and strict liability
duties to Plaintiffs, to the passengers and crew of the Aircraft, to the FAA, and to the public to
provide correct, sufficient, safe and industry standard~ and regulatorily-compliant information
about the Aircraft, its compo~ents and systems, and associated documentation. However, the
Aircraft Defendants breached these duties by failing to issue appropriate and lawful instructions,
warnings, manuals .and other technical documentation to foreseeable operators and users of,
and training personnel for, the Aircraft, Including Plaintiffs, the flight crew of the Aircraft, and
. appropriate maintenance and operational personnel. Such failures created a substantial risk of
property damage and serious bodily injury or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft,
22 12323307.1
including Plaintiffs, the flight crew and the passengers, and rendered the Aircraft, its component
parts and systems and accompanying warnings, instructions, manuals and other technical
documentation defective and unreasonably dangerous, causing the Accident.
the Aircraft Defendants' misrepresentations in purchasing the Aircraft, in using and operating
the Aircraft in conformance with what they believed to be sufficient and correct operating and
other instructions, and in paying for transport on the Aircraft, believing it to be safe, airworthy,
crashworthy, and in compliance with industry standards, applicable laws and regulations when,
unbeknownst to them,it was not.
Aircr?lft Defendants' misrepresentations created a substantial risk of property damage and
serious injury or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, including Plaintiffs and the flight crew .
78. Plaintiffs' damages were caused by their reliance on the aforementioned
misrepresentations.
79. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no
less than $12;000,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reas-onable
attorneys' fees, as alleged further below.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Implied Warranties Against Aircraft Defendants)
80. Plaintiffs r.e-allege each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth' ~t length here.
81. As detailed above, the Aircraft Defendants designed, manufactured, sold,
distributed, marketed and placed into the stream of commerce the Aircraft and/or its component
parts and systems and associated Instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical
information with known, unreasonably dangerous defects posing a risk of property damage and
12323307.1
23
,- ,.\
serious bodily injury or death to the Aircraft's passengers, crew and others, which defects
proximately resulted in the Accident, the destruction of the Aircraft, the injuries and/or loss of life
to the crew and passengers, and substantial and continuing damage to Plaintiffs.
82. In selling and placing the Aircraft and Its component parts and systems and
associated documentation into the stream of commerce, the Aircraft Defendants Impliedly
warranted that the same were safe, airworthy, crashworthy, merchantable, and suitable and fit
for their particular, intended, and reasonably foreseeable purpose(s).
83. However, as a result of the multiple aforementioned defects, the Aircraft, its
component parts and systems and/or the associated warnings, instructions, manuals and other
technical documentation were not, 'in fact, safe, airworthy, crashworthy, merchantable, or
suitable and fit for their intended and reasonably foreseeable purpose(s).
84. The aforementioned defects and ,breaches of implied warranties created a
substantial risk of serious injury or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, including Plaintiffs
and the flight crew and passengers of the Aircraft, and did in fact result in the Accident, the
destruction of the Aircraft, the injuries and/or loss of life to the cr€w and passengers, and
sUbstantial and continuing damage.to Plaintiffs, as alleged herein.
85. As a result 'of such breaches of 'implied warranties and other Improper and
unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial but which is no
less than $12,000,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees, as aJleged further below.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for Judgment as set forth below in Its prayer for relief.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violations of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act Against Aircraft Defendants)
86, Plaintiffs re-allege each and, every allegation set forth in th~, 'preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully 'set forth at length here.
87. As detailed above, the Aircraft Defendants, and each, of them, falsely
misrepresented to Plaintiffs, to the flight crew and passengers of the Aircraft, to the FAA and to
24 12323307.1
- II;' :0"
the public that the Aircr~ft, its component parts and systems, and its associated w~rnings,
instructions, manuals and other .technlcal documentation were safe, airworthy, crashworthy,
Industry standard- and regulatorily-compliant, of merchantable quality, fit for their intended
purpose, and properly designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, distributed, sold and
marketed. All such acts did and continue to constitute unfair trade practices within .the meaning
of S.C. Code § 39-5-10 et seq.

88. The Aircraft D·efendants had and continue to have a pecuniary interest in making
such misrepresentations in that the FAA would not have certified the Aircraft, its component
parts and systems and associated documentation, and Plaintiffs and other intended users would
not have purchased or used the Aircraft, its component parts and systems and associated
documentation, had the true, defective and potentially fatal nature of such Aircraft, components
and documentation been known.
89. All such acts had, and continue to have, an impact on the public interest in the
following respects:
(a) . The Aircr.aft Defendants have violated, .and continue to violate, regulatory and
statuto~y duties established for t~e· protection of the public;
(b) The Aircraft Defendants' misrepresentations placed members of the public at risk
of a sudden,catastrophic and calamitous accident and did cause such an accident, causing
harm to life and pu~lic property;
(c) The Aircraft Defendants' misrepresentations have had an adverse impact on the
public interest in ensuring the safety of airc~aft and air travel.
90. Further, all such misrepresentations have the potential for repetition in that the
Aircraft Defendants have continued to manufacture, distribute, market and sell, in South
Carolina and elsewhere, defective· Learjet 60 model aircraft, components, systems, and related
documentation in substantially the same condition as before the Accident, despite the Aircraft
Defendants' knowledge of the dangerous and potential fatal propensities of.same. .
25 12323307.1
(1 (f ,:, !-..,
the Aircraft Defendants' misrepresentations in purchasing the Aircraft, in using and operating
the Aircraft in conformance with what they believe to be sUfficient and correct operating and
other Instructions, and in paying for transport on the Aircraft, believing it to be safe, airworthy,
crashworthy, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations when, unbeknownst to
them, it was not.
92. The unreasonably dangerous, and potentially fatal, and defective nature of the
Aircraft Defendants' misrepresentations created a SUbstantial risk of property damage and
serious injury or death to foreseeable users of the Aircraft, including Plaintiffs, the flight crew
and passengers of the Aircraft, and the public.
93. Plaintiffs' damages were caused by their reliance on the aforementioned
misrepresentations.
94. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at -trial but which is no
less than $12,000,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees, as alleged further below.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below in Its prayer for relief.
PRAYER
Plaintiffs pray for relief against the Airport Defendants as follows:
(a) For any and all of Plaintiffs' damages as will be proven at tria.l;
(b) For recovery _of all of Pla-intiffs' attorneys' and expert fees and costs of suit
herein; and
(c) For-such other and further relief as justice may require.
Plaintiffs pray for relief against the Aircraft Defendants as follows:
(a) For any and all of Plaintiffs' damages as will be proven at trIal;
(b) For recovery of all of Plaintiffs' attorneys' and expert fees and costs of suit
26 12323307.1
.', c 1;~ :-',
(c) For any damages or remedies which Plaintiffs are entitled to receive
pursuant to statute;
(d) For prejudgment interest on all amounts which Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover; and
(e) For such other and further relief as justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
ELLIS, LAWHORNE & SIMSP.A.
BY:~
Joh . ay, Jr.
- ie&·k
Shaun C. Blake
1501 Main Street, 5th Floor
Columbia, se 28201
Tel.: (803) 254-4190
Fax: (803) 779-4749
- and-
William L. Robinson
Brian C. Dalrymple
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: (415) 984-8200
Fax: (415) 984-8300
Columbia, SC Attorneys for Plaintiffs ITAS and GLOBAL
December 23, 2008 EXEC
27 12323301.1

INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES INC Et Al v. COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT Et Al Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES INC Et Al v. COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT Et Al Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

3:09-cv-00210-MJP Date Filed 01/27/09 Entry Number 1-1 Page 5 of 32

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )

INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO.: 08~CP-40-

'To: THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE-NAMED:

by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

(Signature on Next Page)

STA.TE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO.: 08-CP-40-

C":l r::'J ~~~-n

~ ) (Jury Trial Demanded) ~ c.,:,

compl~ining of Defendants COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT; RICHLAND-LEXINGTON

AIRPORT DISTRICT; LEARJET, INC.; BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CORPORATION;

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; and DOES #1 - 3D, as folloWS:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT

is operated by Defendant RICHLAND"LEXINGTON AIRPORT DISTRICT, a political subdivision

Airport Defendants, either separately or through the Richland-Lexington Airport Commission,

4. Upon information and belief, LEARJET, INC. ("LEARJET") is a Delaware

BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE CORPORATION ("BOMBARDIER"). Jurisdiction in this .action

services to a major Learjet/Bombardier operator and through 'a Learjet/Bombardier authorized

consumed in the state.

5. LEARJET and DOES 1~10, land each of them, designed, manufactured,

6. Upon information and belief, BOMBARDIER is a Delaware corporation and/or a

in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Jurisdiction in this action exists as to BOMBARDIER in that it

Bombardier/Learjet operator and through a Bombardier/Learjet authorized maintenance center

8. Upon information and belief, GOODYEAR TIRE ~ RUBBER CO. ("GOODYEAR")

providing good~ and services to a major Bombardier/Learjet operator and through a

Bombardier/Learjet authorized maintenance center In the State of South Carolina. Jurisdiction

and such goods were so used and consumed in the state.

. 9. GOODYEAR and DOES 21-30, and each of them, designed, manufactured,

DOES 1-30 when the same become known to Plaintiffs.

11. Defendants LEARJET, BOMBARDIER, GOODYEAR and DOES 1-30 are

collectively referred to herein as the "Aircraft Defendants."

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

substantial rate of speed, it experienced a sudden, catastrophic and calamitous failure of

.ge.ne~aJly .her~in ·a.s t~~ ."6ccident~. " ....

escaped from the flaming wreckage with burn injuries.

accumulated less than 125 flIght hours.

THE AIRCRAFT DEFENDANTS

LEARJET, BOMBARDIER, GOODYEAR and/or DOES 1-30 (the "Aircraft Defendants")

substantial,andcontinuin,g damage to Plaintiffs, as alleged further below.

alleged further below.

18. The Aircraft Defendants' acts, 'omissions and misrepresentations violated

FAA, and the public in that the Aircraft Defendants:

(a) improperly, negligently and unlawfully engineered, designed, manufactured,

unreasonably dangerous defects, including defects related to the "crashworthiness" of the

Federal Aviation Regulations and other applicab'.e law;

associated instructions, warnings, manuals and other techni~al documentation;

instructions, warnings, manuals and other technical documentation;

and/or marketing defects;

of 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 25 and S.C. Code § 55-5-90.

grossly negligent, reckless and/or willful in that, without limitation, they:

take appropriate steps to remedy such known defects;

systems' unreasonably dangerous propensities, as described above;

of other .incidents demonstrating such propensities,;

20. The Aircraft Defendants' material misrepresentations were negligent, grossly

negligent and reckless and included, without limitation, misrepresentations that:

expertise, experience and methodology to properly, professionally and legally design,

component parts, when they did not;

purpose(s), when they were not;

(f) the Aircraft was "crashworthy," when it was not;

Aviation Regulations, when they were not in compliance;

law, when they were not in compliance;