PRISCO v. BOMBARDIER, INC. et al Complaint

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

1/22

Case 1:10-cv-01007-WMS Document 1 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NEIL J. PRISCO, JR., Individually and asAdministrator of the Estate of Donna LynnPrisco,

Plaintiff,vs.

))))))))BOMBARDIER, INC.; BOMBARDIER )AEROSPACE CORP.; COLGAN AIR, INC., )CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.;FLIGHTSAFETY, INC. a/k/a )FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL, INC.; )PINNACLE AIRLINES CORP. )

Defendants ----------------------------

Case No.: 10 CV 100'1--COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT

Neil J. Prisco,Jr., individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Donna Lynn Prisco,by and through his attorneys Motley Rice LLC, for the Compliant against defendants, and eachof them allege the following:

PARTIES1. Plaintiff is the duly appointed Administrator of the Estate of Donna Prisco, who

died in the crash of Continental Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009. Letters of Administrationwere issued to the Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff brings this action as Administrator and personal representative of theEstate of Donna Prisco, deceased, and on behalfof each and every beneficiary, survivor, and heirof decedent under applicable law, including their children and himself as surviving husband ofDonna Prisco.


2/22


3/22


"air transportation" 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., a1k/a FlightSafety International, Inc. (hereafter"FSI") is and was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, a corporation and/or corporateenterprise organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State ofNew York that isauthorized to do and is doing business in the State ofNew York, County ofQueens.

9. Defendant FSI is and was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, the holder of a"Training 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, amongother 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, Pinnacleand/or Continental.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE10. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to, 28 U.S.C. 1332. There is diversity of

citizenship 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 ALLEGATIONS13. On or about February 12,2009, Donna Prisco was a flight attendant employed by

Colgan Air, Inc. (hereinafter Colgan) on board Continental Connection Flight 3407, en routefrom Newark, New Jersey to Buffalo, New York.

3


4/22


5/22


19. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants herein, and each ofthem, before her death, Donna Prisco's 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, Donna Prisco died and her beneficiaries, heirs and survivors including her husband andchildren, have been and continue to be, deprived of their wife's and mother's companionship,care, comfort, consortium, education, guidance, training, and other economic and pecuniarylosses, and non-economic and non-pecuniary losses.

21. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants herein, and each ofthem, Donna Prisco died and her beneficiaries, heirs and survivors including her husband andchildren have suffered, and continue to suffer, other compensable damages under applicable law,according to proof.

22. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants herein, and each ofthem, Donna Prisoc died and her beneficiaries, heirs and survivors including her husband andchildren 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 ininterstate and international commerce in that, among other things, they each regularly operatedscheduled passenger flights and maintained, inspected, serviced, scheduled, leased, andpurchased aircraft, including the N200WQ, and aircraft manuals for the aircraft and their flightoperations.

- 5


6/22


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 andits 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 componentsparts 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 whichthey were designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, marketed and intended to be used in amanner reasonably foreseeable to Bombardier and in a condition without substantial change fromtheir 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 toColgan and Pinnacle, including information concerning the design, operation and maintenance ofthe Bombardier Aircraft and its component parts, systems and manuals.

- 6


7/22


30. Bombardier owed a duty to Colgan, Pinnacle and Donna Prisco to exerCIsereasonable care in the design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, and maintenance of theBombardier Aircraft and its component parts, systems and manuals. Upon information andbelief, Bombardier violated such duty.

31. Upon information and belief, the Accident and the plaintif fs damages wereproximately caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of Bombardier with respect tothe design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, and maintenance of the Bombardier aircraft andits component parts, systems and manuals.

32. Defendant Bombardier designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested,distributed, serviced, maintained, monitored, repaired, marketed and introduced into the streamof commerce the aircraft, and its component parts, including, but not limited to, the aircraft's deicing system, flight control system, stabilizer system, electrical system, and flightinstrumentation system, along with instructions, warnings, and flight operations and maintenancemanuals, 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 theaircraft 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 DefendantsColgan, Pilmacle and/or Continental as contractee(s), Defendant FSI authorized agent of itscontractee(s) undertook responsibility for providing Defendant Colgan employee, MarvinRenslow, with the necessary flight simulator training required by Part 121 of the FAA

- 7


8/22


Regulations [14 C.F.R. 121.1 et seq.] to qualify Captain Renslow for duty as pilot in commandof 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 FSI"sDash 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 DefendantsColgan, Pinnacle and/or Continental, as contractee(s), Defendant FSI as authorized agent of itscontractee(s) undertook responsibility for providing Defendant Colgan employee, Rebecca

Shaw, with the necessary ground and transition flight simulator training required by Part 121 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations [14 C.F .R. 121.1 et seq.] to qualify First Officer Shaw for dutyas 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 FSI's Toronto LearningCenter.

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 marketedits 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 clearthat FSI's products and training were offered not just for the benefit of its customers, but forthose passengers and flight attendants that flew on its customer's 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 crewsof Bombardier regional jets: and provided training on the Dash 8-Q400 and claimed to have "day

- 8


9/22


to day working relationships with the great majority of the aircraft manufacturers, whichensures ... access to the latest bulletins and best practices advisories." Despite this advertisingand these claims, upon information and belief, FSI never provided instruction to the Captain orthe 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 trainingDash 8-Q400 simulation and training equipment that was not representative of aircraftperformance.

40. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, up to andincluding February 12, 2009, FSI was under tremendous financial pressure, and FSI's presidentexhorted employees in an April 3, 2003, memorandum to "do more to reduce costs and increaserevenues" because "[a]t the present time, expenses are too high for the amount of revenues wegenerate;" he pressured employees to cut costs, reduce staffing, increase revenue, and doeverything possible to run things more "efficiently;" he referred to the current "training systemsthat.. .need[ed] to challenge and impress customers, make learning fun, and provide a level ofcompetency 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 andcomputerized ...." This corporate culture and purposeful decision making led to substandardflight and simulator training where key components of the aircraft - including the stick pushermechanism on the Dash 8-Q400 were not adequately or accurately represented by flightsimulation 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,

- 9


10/22


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 eachsuch 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 managingagent 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 thehealth and safety of others, including the Plaintiff s decedent, Donna Prisco

COUNT I(Negligence and Egregious Negligence against Defendant Colgan,)

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

45. Donna Prisco, on February 12, 2009, was an employee of Defendant, Colgan,working on board Continental Connection Flight 3407, enroute from Newark, New Jersey toBuffalo, New York.

46. Defendant, Colgan, owed a duty to Donna Prisco, to conduct operations safely asnot 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 thefollowing particulars:

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

- 10


11/22


b. failed to provide enough supervisory pilots to ensure safety ofDefendant'snew 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 useof the automated control system, and incorrect communicationsprocedures

d. failed to provide an adequate safety feedback structuree. failed to keep current safety manuals

f. 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 pilots1. failed to provide adequate procedures for airspeed selection and

management during approaches in icy conditionsJ. failed to ensure pilots were adequately trained on "sterile cockpit" conceptk. failed to equip the Q400 with low speed awareness indicators1. failed to provide adequate CRM training to their pilotsm. failed to ensure captain's had adequate leadership and management

trainingn. failed to effectively monitor and enforce their policy of flight crews not

using the crew room for overnight resto. failed to monitor and prevent crews from long commutes preceding crew

member duty time

- 11


12/22


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

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

airmen, and/oru. failed to implement the flight operational quality assurance program

47. 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 resultin injury or death to their employees, to a substantial certainty.

48. The death of Donna Prisco was more than the mere fact of life of industrialemployment and was the result of the Defendant Colgan's negligent, careless, reckless, willfuland 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 Plaintiff's decedentto 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 CodeShare Agreement dated July 1, 1997 between Colgan and Continental, the rights and

- 12


13/22


obligations ofwhich were assumed by Defendant Pinnacle when it acquired DefendantColgan, 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 onFebruary 12,2009, as Continental Connection Flight 3407 and their joint and severalemployment and training of the pilots ofContinental Connection Flight 3407.

52. The crash of continental COlmection Flight 3407 and resulting death ofPlaintiff'sdecedent as aforesaid were proximately caused through no fault of the decedent by joint andseveral negligence, careless acts and omissions, wrongful acts and omissions, wanton and willful

acts and omissions, recklessness and dereliction of duty of Defendants Colgan, Pinnacle andContinental and, further, by their failure to take all necessary means to avoid the crash and fatalinjuries to Plaintiff's decedent, accordingly, each of the said Defendants is jointly and severallyliable 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 recklesslytrained 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 towhich 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 knowingsaid aircraft was inadequately equipped with ineffective de-icing equipment, and had negligentlyfailed to train the crew of flight 3407 to operate the aircraft in such circumstances.

- 13


14/22


55. That as a direct and proximate cause of the acts and conduct alleged herein, theflight went out of control and flight 3407 was caused to, and did, crash, thereby injuringPlaintiff's decedent and causing her death and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffherein.

COUNT III-(Strict Liability Against Defendants Bombardier)

56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior and subsequent allegations inthis Complaint.

57. The aircraft and its component parts, systems, manuals, instructions, andwarnings were defective and umeasonably dangerous by reason of defective design,manufacture, and/or marketing and the failure of defendant to give adequate and properwarnings of the dangers existing therein and adequate instructions regarding theavoidance of such dangers. The defective and umeasonably dangerous conditions in suchaircraft exposed Plaintiff's decedent and the public in general to an umeasonable risk ofharm and were a producing cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages. The umeasonablydangerous conditions /defect(s) include, among other things, the de-icing system, thepilot's operating manual, the flight control systems, maintenance manuals andprocedures, and the absence of adequate warnings and instructions regarding suchdangers, including but not limited to the failure to provide pilots with a system toadequately warn of dangerously low airspeeds, approaching stalls or imminent stalls.

58. At the time the subject aircraft and its de-icing system, maintenanceprocedures, and other pertinent component parts were sold and/or marketed and/or placedinto the stream of commerce by defendants, such products were defective and

14


15/22


unreasonably dangerous as that term is defined in law to persons, including Plaintiff'sdecedent, who could reasonably be expected to use or benefit from it, and whichdefective and unreasonably dangerous conditions were a direct and proximate cause ofPlaintiff's damages, The subject aircraft was also defective by reason of suchdefendant's failure to include or place with it adequate warnings and instructions as todangers associated with the design and foreseeable maintenance and use of the productsand how to avoid such dangers, and which defects rendered the subject aircraftunreasonably dangerous and a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries anddamages.

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 maintenancemanuals, and inspection of transport category aircraft and their components, and, in thecourse of business as an aerospace manufacturer, defendants designed, constructed,assembled, manufactured, inspected, tested, published flight operation and maintenancemanuals, and caused to be certified under Part 25 of the federal Aviation Regulations theDash 8-Q400 model transport category aircraft, including N200WQ, which defendantsexpressly and impliedly warranted was fit for its intended purpose use as a vehicle in airtransportation, being airworthy and free of unreasonably dangerous defects; and, further,defendant marketed, sold, distributed and caused to be introduced N200WQ into thestream of commerce by sale or lease to Continental, Pinnacle and/or Colgan.

- 15


16/22


60. The uncontrolled flight and crash alleged herein and the injury, damage,and death of Plaintiff's decedent were proximately caused and/or substantiallycontributed 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 ofothers, including the Plaintiff's decedent, Donna Prisco.

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 theaircraft and its component parts, systems, manuals, instructions, and warnings so as tohave causes the loss of control and crash of flight 3407. Defendants knew, or in theexercise of ordinary care should have known, that aircraft and its component parts,systems, manuals, instructions, and warnings were defective and unreasonably dangerousto those persons likely to use the products for the purposes and in the manner for whichthey were intended to be used and for the purposes reasonably foreseeable to suchdefendants, including the purpose for which N200WQ was used on February 12, 2009.Defendants were negligent in the particulars set forth in this and the precedingparagraphs, among other reasons, and said negligence was a proximate cause of theoccurrence made the basis of this suit and Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

- 16


17/22


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-icingsystem, and flight control systems, such that the type of incident and resulting injuries asdescribed herein would be prevented. Defendants had actual knowledge of the means ofdesigning and testing an aircraft, manuals and flight control systems, including but notlimited to a system that would provide pilots with adequate warnings of dangerously lowairspeeds, approaching stalls or imminent stalls, such that They would not be inadequateor unreasonably dangerous. Defendants were additionally negligent in that they failed togive adequate or proper warnings or instructions to ordinary users thereof, includingContinental, Pinnacle, Colgan and Plaintiffs decedent, and failed to recall or timelyrecall the products or make appropriate post-marketing efforts to prevent incidents suchas the one included herein.

65. Defendants owed Plaintiff's decedent the duty of reasonable care indesigning, manufacturing, testing, and marketing the products in question. Defendantsviolated their duty and were negligent, said negligence including those acts of omissionor commission previously described. This defendants' negligent acts, collectively and/orseverally, were a proximate cause or causes of the accident made the basis of this suit, theinjury 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 wantonand reckless acts and omissions of said defendants in design, manufacture, assembly,construction, testing, inspection, certification, marketing, monitoring, and sale of theaircraft and in their failure to warn of and take appropriate remedial action with respect to

- 17


18/22


a known and dangerously defective condition. Defendants' actions were done knowinglyand intentionally, wanton and reckless and demonstrated a conscious indifference andutter disregard of their effects upon the health and safety of others, including thePlaintiff's decedent, Donna Prisco.

COUNT IV(Breach of Express and Implied Warranty Against Defendants Bombardier)67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior and subsequent allegations of

this Complaint.68. Defendants, by and through the sale of the products in question, expressly

and impliedly warranted to the public generally, and to the Plaintiff's decedentspecifically, that the products in question were fit for the purposes for which they wereintended.

69. Plaintiff 's 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 theimproper marketing involving defendants' failure to warn of the products' inadequaciesor 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 producingcause of the occurrence in question and the resulting injuries suffered by Plaintiffs.

- 18


19/22


Further, defendants' conduct was done knowingly, intentionally and was wanton andreckless and demonstrated a conscious indifference and utter disregard of their effectsupon the health and safety of others, including the Plaintiffs decedent, Donna Prisco.

73. The crash of the aircraft and death of Plaintiffs decedent was proximatelycaused and/or substantially contributed to by defendant's breach of express and impliedwarranties of the said aircraft's fitness for use and defendant's breach of itsrepresentations that the Dash-8 Q400 model aircraft, and, in particular Dash-8, were freeofumeasonably 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 forthe 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 complainedherein.

COUNT V

(Negligence against Defendant FlightSafety International)76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior and subsequent allegations of

this Complaint.77. Upon information and belief, the Defendant FSI conducts and operates a

flight school for the instruction and training of professional pilots.78. Upon information and belief, in March 2008, the Defendant FSI provided

training and instruction to Colgan employee Rebecca Shaw, the First Officer on

- 19


20/22


Continental Connection Flight 3407, as to the operation of the Dash8-Q400 aircraft, atFSI's 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 andinstructed in the operation of the Dash 8-Q400 aircraft at FSI's St. Louis Training Centerin 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 andMarvin 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, wrongfulacts and omissions, wanton and willful acts and omissions, and recklessness anddereliction of duty of Defendant FSI in instructing and training Rebecca Shaw andMarvin Renslow and/or its creation and/or design of the aforesaid programs of instructionand 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 toPlaintiff's 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 cOUliswhich would otherwise have jurisdiction and for punitive damages; Plaintiff will seekdamages in an amount to be proven and determined at the time of trial.

- 20


21/22


COUNT VI(Negligent Performance of a Contractual Duty against DefendantFlightSafety International)

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

85. The crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 and resulting death of Plaintiff sdecedent as aforesaid were proximately caused through no fault of the decedent by thenegligence, careless acts and omissions, wrongful acts and omissions, wanton and willful actsand omissions, recklessness and dereliction of duty of Defendant FSI, acting by and through itsofficers, agents, servants, and employees, while affirmatively discharging its contractualobligations 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 ofharm to others, increased a risk of harm to others, created a dangerous condition, and/orexacerbated a dangerous condition.

87. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs decedent and other ContinentalConnection Flight 3407 passengers relied upon FSI 's 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 COID1ection Flight 3407 and theresulting 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.

- 21


22/22


2. For damages arising from the pre-impact physical pain and suffering, andmental anguish of Plaintiff's 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 COUli may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYPlaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Dated this 14th day ofDecember, 2010

B y ~ ' ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ __Fidelma L. Fitz rickAttorney for PlaintiffMotley Rice LLC275 Seventh Ave., 2nd floorNew York, NY 10001Tel. (401) 457-7728Fax (401) 457-7708ffitzpatrick(iiJ,motleyrice.com

PRISCO v. BOMBARDIER, INC. et al Complaint

Documents