Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 23

bfW\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case No:

LILIA CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff

18

1769

Complaint Filed:. _ _ _ _ _ __
vs.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY;
CIVIL COMPLAINT
GE AVIATION, LLC;
SAFRAN S.A. d/b/a
APR l 6 20!3
SAFRAN AICRAFT ENGINES;
SAFRAN USA, INC.
BY·.....i.....u..-~·,
CFM INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
Defendants
CIVIL COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Lilia Chavez, by and through undersigned counsel, and for
her Complaint against Defendants, jointly and severally, states as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1.

Plaintiff, Lilia Chavez, is a citizen and resident of the State of California.

2.

At all times material hereto, Defendant, Southwest Airlines Company, (hereafter

"Southwest") is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Texas and operates as a
common carrier airline with its principle place of business believed and therefore averred to be
located at 2702 Love Field Drive, Dallas, TX 75235 and is registered to conduct business in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or may be served within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
at Corporation Service Company, 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103, Harrisburg, PA 17110.
3.

Defendant GE Aviation, LLC (hereafter individually referred to as "GE") is a

corporation existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principle place of business
believed and therefore averred to be located at One Neuman Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215. GE does
business individually, through a partnership, agency, and/or joint venture as CFM International.

1

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 2 of 23

The registered agent for GE is Business Filings Incorporated, 108 West

13th

Street, Wilmington,

DE 19801.
4.

Defendant Safran S.A. (hereafter individually referred to as "Safran") is a foreign

corporation existing under the laws of the country of France which does business through its
division Safran Aircraft Engines and is believed and therefore averred to be located at 2 Boulevard
Du General Martial-Valin, Paris, 75742, France. Safran does business individually, through a
partnership, agency, and/or joint venture as CFM International. Service of process may be had
pursuant to The Hague Service Convention and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2) and 4(f).
5.

Defendant Safran USA, Inc. (hereafter individually referred to as "Safran USA") is

a Delaware corporation with its principle office believed and therefore averred to be located at
22091 West Royal Lane, Irving, Dallas County, Texas 75063. Safran USA is an affiliate of Safran
S.A. and does business individually, through a partnership, agency, and/or joint venture as CFM
International and/or is otherwise the United States entity appointed by Safran S.A. to support its
domestic interests with respect to the engine product line. The registered agent for Safran USA is
believed and therefore averred to be Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218.
6.

At all times material hereto, Defendant CFM International, Inc. (hereafter "CFM")

is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principle place of business
believed and therefore averred to be located at One Neuman Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215 and does
business individually, through a partnership, agency, and/or joint venture as CFM International.
CFM maintains a registered agent at The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

2

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 3 of 23

7.

GE, Safran, Safran USA, and CFM are collectively referred to as "the CFM

Defendants" when referencing the joint venture, agency, and/or partnership between these entities
for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, supporting, and designing commercial aircraft engines.
8.

All conditions precedent to maintaining this cause of action have accrued. The

amount of controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount exclusive of costs and interest,
and jurisdiction is otherwise proper before this Court as more fully alleged below.
9.

Jurisdiction is founded, in whole or in part, upon diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, in that (a) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest;
(b) at all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of the state of California; and (c) at all times
material hereto, the Defendants were all incorporated in a state other than California and have their
principle place in a state other than California.
10.

All defendants caused a tort, portions thereof, and/or consequences of a tort to occur

in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
11.

Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because one or all of

these defendants conduct substantial regular business in this District:
a.

Defendant Southwest operates regular commercial flights from its assigned

terminal located in Philadelphia County at the Philadelphia International Airport;
b.

All defendants regularly and systematically conduct business, solicit

business, and earn substantial revenue from business conducted within this district;
c.

In addition, events giving rise to the cause of action occurred in Philadelphia

County.
12.

All defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction m the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania:

3

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 4 of 23

a.

They committed torts within or outside of the Commonwealth which caused

harm within the Commonwealth;
b.

Each defendant maintains sufficient minimum contacts with the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by systematically, regularly, and continuously conducting
business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by availing themselves to the business
opportunities here, conducting regularly scheduled flights and associated services from
Pennsylvania, providing services to maintain CFM model engines and assure the
continuing airworthiness of these engines in Pennsylvania;
c.

Plaintiff's cause of action arises from or is related to these contacts;

d.

Exercising personal jurisdiction over these defendants is consistent with due

process considerations and is fair.
BACKGROUND OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION

13.

Defendant Southwest is a commercial air carrier and owes the highest duty of care

to its passengers to ensure safe carriage aboard those flights that it operates.
14.

Defendants CFM, GE, Safran and Safran USA, doing business as CFM

International, manufactured, designed, and sold the CFM56-7B engines that are installed in certain
Boeing 73 7-700 commercial aircraft.
15.

It is of the utmost importance that commercial air earners as well as the

manufacturers of commercial aircraft engines adhere to the highest standards of care to ensure that
passengers are not subjected to any dangers which could induce an in-flight emergency or worse,
an air disaster.
16.

Members of the public who engage in commercial air travel place the ultimate trust,

and do in fact entrust their lives and safety, to entities such as Southwest and the CFM Defendants

4

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 5 of 23

and rely upon their good will, representations of dedications to safety, and apparent expertise over
the airworthiness of their products and propriety of their services.
17.

These defendants, however, unforgivably breached that trust as they each were

aware of a dangerous condition existing in the CFM56-7B engines which power those Boeing 73 7700 aircraft that Southwest operate in its fleet of commercial aircraft.
18.

This knowledge, either in whole or in part along with additional reasons to be

developed in discovery, arises from the in-flight uncontained engine failure that befell a Southwest
Airlines Boeing 737-700 scheduled as Southwest Flight 3472 on August 27, 2016 when one the
CFM56-7B engine fan blades failed, destroyed the engine compartment, and caused engine debris
to strike and damage the aircraft fuselage.
19.

The uncontained engine failure that befell Flight 3472 was precipitated by a fatigue

failure of the fan blade of the CFM56-7B engine.
20.

Subsequent to Flight 34 72, Southwest and the CFM Defendants failed to take

reasonable measures and failed to identify and correct the root cause of the metal fatigue failure of
the fan blade and the uncontained nature of the failure to ensure that a future uncontained fan blade
failure would not occur despite being on clear notice that such a failure could and did result in a
projectile striking the aircraft fuselage.
21.

Instead, the CFM Defendants recommended inspections of the fan blades based on

hours in service, however, upon information and belief Southwest did not follow, accelerate, nor
properly perform these inspections on the Boeing 73 7-700 aircraft in its fleet including the subject
aircraft.
22.

The fan blade inspections, however, are not the cure to the root cause of the

problem, but rather a band aid masking a dangerous metallurgical, structural, casting, forging, or

5

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 6 of 23

metallic treatment-based design or manufacturing flaw, or other design or manufacturing defect
rendering the fan blades incapable of withstanding the vibratory and/or thermal stresses
encountered in normal operational service.
23.

Despite this threat to the safety of Southwest's fleet of 737-700 aircraft, despite the

snail's pace investigation into the root cause of Flight 3472's fan blade failure, these defendants
provided no warnings to the flying public, provided no warnings to its actual customers, and in
particular, provided no warnings to Plaintiff Lilia Chavez.
24.

Instead of providing necessary warnings or otherwise removing dangerous engines

from service, Southwest continued to operate commercial air carrier services despite knowing that
its Boeing 737-300 aircraft, including the subject aircraft, were operating with an unresolved and
undisclosed unsafe condition.
25.

On April 17, 2018, Ms. Chavez was a fare-paying passenger aboard Southwest

Airlines Flight 1380 which was a scheduled flight originating at New York-LaGuardia Airport.
26.

Ms. Chavez relied on the representations, warranties of the defendants, and

entrusted her safety to Southwest and the CFM Defendants as she was completely unaware of the
dangerous condition plaguing the aircraft's engines; a risk that never would have been accepted
had it been disclosed to her.
27.

Approximately 20 minutes after Flight 1380 took off and was flying in the airspace

over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the left CFM56-7B engine suffered a catastrophic
uncontained failure of a fan blade causing unexpected and sudden pitch and/or bank movements
of the aircraft and a resulting controlled rapid emergency decent.
28.

Debris from the uncontained engine failure struck the aircraft's fuselage and

shattered a passenger's window causing rapid depressurization.

6

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 7 of 23

29.

Ms. Chavez was sitting three seats behind the location of the shattered window.

30.

Ms. Chavez witnessed the horror as the force of the depressurization pulled an

innocent passenger partially through the shattered window and she watched as passengers risked
their lives to pull the passenger back into the aircraft and save her life.
31.

The engine failure and breach of the window caused severe vibrations and the

cabin environment to become a whirlwind of airflow and airborne debris which struck Ms. Chavez
and obstructed her breathing.
32.

This environment exacerbated Ms. Chavez' panic and horror and in the midst of

the violent conditions within the cabin; she prayed and feared for her life, she heard other
passengers using their cell phones to reach out to loved ones to say their final goodbyes, she herself
contacted her children to tell them that she loved them and that she was preparing to die aboard
the crippled aircraft.
33.

Flight 1380 was diverted to Philadelphia International Airport where it landed and

passengers disembarked only to be encountered by a team of people actually or ostensibly working
on behalf of Southwest whose questions and treatment of passengers revealed a failure to account
for the shock that these innocent victims, including Ms. Chavez, were experiencing.
34.

The individuals actually, or ostensibly, working on behalf of Southwest, failed to

use the appropriate care of Ms. Chavez and exacerbated the traumatic stress she experienced.
35.

Photographs taken of the failed left engine and published by news reports reveals a

missing fan blade with reports that the fracture surfaces showed signs of metal fatigue.
36.

Plaintiffs investigation thus far supports a finding that the blade failure which

occurred on Southwest Flight 1380 was identical and/or substantially similar to the fan blade
failure which occurred on Southwest Flight 3472.

7

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 8 of 23

37.

As a direct and proximate cause of the traumatic events that befell Flight 1380

Plaintiff Lilia Chavez suffered and continues to suffer, severe personal injuries including but not
limited to post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, emotional distress, depression, personal injuries
to her body including the physical manifestations of the emotional and mental trauma she
experienced and continues to suffer, and seeks recovery for all damages including but not limited
to, damages for loss of earnings, financial damages, mental, emotional, and physical pain and
suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of ability to perform and experience the usual activities
of life, loss of earning capacity, past and future medical care and expenses together with damages
for physical pain and suffering, and emotional anguish, terror and fright. Plaintiff further seeks all
other available compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages against the Defendants and
each of them for their reckless misconduct and conscious disregard for her safety, health, life and
wellbeing.
COUNT I: Negligence
Plaintiff vs. Southwest

38.

Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

39.

As a common carrier and/or commercial airline carrier, Southwest owed a duty of

care to its passengers, including Ms. Chavez, to ensure that the aircraft and engines that it uses in
its fleet are airworthy, that all maintenance and inspections necessary to ensure the continuing
airworthiness of its fleet is performed in a professional and workmanlike manner, owed a duty to
discontinue services and/or warn its passengers of any dangers associated with its aircraft so that
they make informed judgments about purchasing services from Southwest or other carriers, and
owed duties to perform any duties that it assumed in a professional and reasonably prudent manner
in the context of the circumstances presented.

8

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 9 of 23

40.

As an air carrier, Southwest also owed regulatory duties to ensure that the aircraft

that it uses in its fleet are airworthy, that all maintenance and inspections necessary to ensure the
continuing airworthiness of its fleet is performed in a professional and workmanlike manner, and
owed a duty to discontinue services and/or warn its passengers of any dangers associated with its
aircraft so that they make informed judgments about purchasing services from Southwest or other
carriers; the breaches of such regulatory duties constitute negligence per se.
41.

Defendant Southwest breached the foregoing duties of care owed to Plaintiff Lilia

Chavez as follows:
a.

Failing to properly inspect the subject engine for signs of impending

catastrophic failure of its internal components;
b.

Failing to properly inspect the engine's containment features to ensure that

they were suitable, in a condition, and/or appropriate to prevent an uncontained engine
failure;
c.

Failing to properly maintain the subject engine to prevent catastrophic

failure of its internal components;
d.

Failing to properly maintain the engine's containment features to ensure that

they were suitable, in a condition, and/or appropriate to prevent an uncontained engine
failure;
e.

Failing to properly inspect the subject engine pre-flight so as to identify

internal engine components exhibiting signs of impending failure;
f.

Failing to properly inspect the subject engine's containment features pre-

flight to ensure that they were suitable, in a condition, and/or appropriate to prevent an
uncontained engine failure;

9

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 10 of 23

g.

Failing to follow the recommended/mandatory inspection procedures

designed to identify impending failure of internal engine components;
h.

Failing to follow the recommended/mandatory inspection procedures

designed to identify impending failure in the subject engine's containment features to
ensure that they were suitable, in a condition, and/or appropriate to prevent an uncontained
engine failure;
I.

Failing to take appropriate and reasonable corrective measures after the in-

flight emergency that befell Flight 34 72 to ensure that similar uncontained engine failures
would not occur;
j.

Failing to take appropriate and reasonable measures to ensure that the

aircraft engines'used in its fleet, including the subject CFM56-7B, were free of design
and/or manufacturing defects rendering it unsafe for flight;
k.

Failing to accelerate the recommended/mandatory inspection procedures

designed to identify impending failure of internal engine components in light of the gravity
of the resulting harm;

1.

Failing to take the necessary precautionary measures to remove the subject

engine from service, which had an unsafe condition that could cause an in-flight
uncontained engine failure;
m.

Failing to ground those aircraft equipped with engines, such as the subject

engine, whose product service history showed malfunctions which had not been remedied,
whose root cause had not been addressed, to prevent further catastrophe;

10

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 11 of 23

n.

Failing to warn Plaintiff that the subject aircraft and its engine contained an

unsafe condition and/or design or manufacturing defects that had not been rectified after a
prior malfunction approximately a year before;
o.

Failing to fulfill regulatory duties to report product defects, service

problems, or other matters that affect the safety of flight to regulatory authorities;
p.

Failing to properly train its team of employees and/or agents responsible to

contend with passengers who were in shock after experiencing an in-flight emergency and
exacerbating her trauma and shock;
q.

Failing to act reasonably by harassing Plaintiff through placing recorded

telephone calls and exacerbating Plaintiffs post-traumatic stress;
r.

Failing to act reasonably for reasons to be developed in discovery of this

action.
42.

As a direct and proximate cause of the forgoing breaches by Defendant Southwest

of duties it owed to Plaintiff, the subject CFM56-7B engine installed on the subject Boeing 73 7700 aircraft experienced a catastrophic uncontained in-flight failure and Plaintiff suffered the
injuries and damages described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant in her favor for the full
amount permitted by law including compensatory damages and punitive damages in light of the
facts, law and evidence, and also seeks any and all interest, costs and attorney's fees allowable.
COUNT II: Breach of Contract and Warranties
Plaintiff vs. Southwest
43.

Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

11

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 12 of 23

44.

Defendant Southwest is a commercial air carrier and offers its services to the public

for a profit. This defendant holds itself out to the public as a company that a has a commitment to
safety and has adopted the highest safety standards to ensure its passenger's safety.
45.

Plaintiff contracted with Defendant Southwest as a fare paying passenger for safe

carriage and transport from her origination to her destination.
46.

Included within that contract was Southwest's obligation to provide an aircraft that

was in a condition safe for flight.
47.

Plaintiff relied upon the representations, good will, warranties, and contractual

obligations that Southwest promised it would perform.
48.

Southwest breached its contractual obligations and warranties in the following

respects:
a.

Failing to properly inspect the subject engine for signs of impending

catastrophic failure of its internal components;
b.

Failing to properly inspect the engine's containment features to

ensure that they were suitable, in a condition, and/or appropriate to prevent an
uncontained engine failure;
c.

Failing to properly maintain the subject engine to prevent

catastrophic failure of its internal components;
d.

Failing to properly maintain the engine's containment features to

ensure that they were suitable, in a condition, and/or appropriate to prevent an
uncontained engine failure;
e.

Failing to properly inspect the subject engine pre-flight so as to

identify internal engine components exhibiting signs of impending failure;

12

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 13 of 23

f.

Failing to properly inspect the subject engine's containment features

pre-flight to ensure that they were suitable, in a condition, and/or appropriate to
prevent an uncontained engine failure;
g.

Failing

to

follow

the

recommended/mandatory

inspection

procedures designed to identify impending failure of internal engine components;
h.

Failing

to

follow

the

recommended/mandatory

inspection

procedures designed to identify impending failure in the subject engine's
containment features to ensure that they were suitable, in a condition, and/or
appropriate to prevent an uncontained engine failure;
i.

Failing to take appropriate and reasonable corrective measures after

the in-flight emergency that befell Flight 3472 to ensure that such events did not
repeat themselves;
J.

Failing to take appropriate and reasonable measures to ensure that

the aircraft it used in its fleet, including the subject Boeing 737-700, were free of
design and/or manufacturing defects rendering it unsafe for flight;

k.

Failing to accelerate the recommended/mandatory inspection

procedures designed to identify impending failure of internal engine components
in light of the gravity of the resulting harm;

1.

Failing to take the necessary precautionary measures to remove the

subject engine from service, which had an unsafe condition that could cause an inflight uncontained engine failure;
m.

Failing to ground those aircraft equipped with engines, such as the

subject engine, whose product service history showed malfunctions which had not

13

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 14 of 23

been remedied, whose root cause had not been addressed, to prevent further
potential catastrophe;
n.

Failing to warn plaintiff that the subject aircraft and its engine

contained serious design defects that had not been rectified after a prior malfunction
'

approximately a year before;
o.

Failing to fulfill regulatory duties to report product defects, service

problems, or other matters that affect the safety of flight to regulatory authorities;
p.

Failing to act reasonably for reasons to be developed in discovery of

this action.
49.

As a direct and proximate cause of the forgoing breaches by Defendant Southwest

of duties it owed to Plaintiff, and here reasonable reliance thereon, the subject CFM56-7B engine
installed on the subject aircraft experienced a catastrophic uncontained in-flight failure and
Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant in her favor for the full
amount permitted by law including compensatory damages and punitive damages in light of the
facts, law and evidence, and also seeks any and all interest, costs and attorney's fees allowable.
COUNT III: Negligence
Plaintiff vs. GE Aviation, Safran, Safran USA, and CFM

50.

Paragraphs 1 through 49 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

51.

Those defendants collectively referred to the CFM Defendants are the

manufacturer, seller, and designer of commercial aircraft engines including the subject CFM567B. These defendants collectively hold themselves and their joint venture out to the public as a
company that a has a commitment to safety and has adopted the highest safety standards to ensure
the safety of the users of its products. As such, these defendants owed Plaintiff duties of care to
14

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 15 of 23

ensure that its products were not dangerous, unsafe, unairworthy, or defective and to warn of any
dangers that would affect the safety of flight and put users of its products in danger.
52.

In addition to duties imposed by common law, the CFM Defendants are subject to

regulatory duties, the breaches of which constitute negligence per se.
53.

The CFM Defendants breached its duties owed to Plaintiff as follows:
a.

Failing to properly test, design, construct, build, or specify the engme

assemblies to ensure that they possess all of the necessary features to be capable of
containing an internal engine malfunction such as the one experienced on Flight 1380;
b.

Failing to properly perform the necessary analysis evaluation, failure

modes and effects analysis, or other accepted engineering study to assess the safety of the
subject engine assembly to contain a failure of the internal components of the subject
engine;
c.

Failing to issue proper maintenance instructions for mechanics to ensure the

continuing airworthiness of the engine assembly so that it was capable of containing a
failure of the internal components of the subject engine;
d.

Failing to issue proper inspection procedures for mechanics to ensure the

continuing airworthiness of the engine assembly so that it was capable of containing a
failure of the internal components of the subject engine;
e

Failing to warn users of its product that the engine assembly suffered from

design and/or manufacturing defects rendering it unsafe for flight because it was incapable
of containing an internal engine malfunction such as the one experienced on Flight 1380;
f.

Failing to properly test, design, construct, build, or specify test the internal

15

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 16 of 23

engine components of its aircraft's engines to ensure that they ar~ capable of withstanding
the stresses imparted to them to prevent a premature failure;
g.

Failing to properly perform the necessary analysis evaluation, failure modes

and effects analysis, or other accepted engineering study to assess the safety of the internal
engine components used in the CFM56-7B engine such as its fan blades;
h.

Failing to issue proper maintenance instructions for mechanics to ensure the

continuing airworthiness of the internal engine components used in the CFM56-7B engine
such as its fan blades;
1.

Failing to issue proper inspection procedures for mechanics to ensure the

continuing airworthiness of the internal engine components used in the CFM56-7B engine
such as its fan blades;

J.

Failing to warn users of its product that the CFM56-7B internal engine

components such as its fan blades suffered from design and/or manufacturing defects
rendering them unsafe for flight because they were incapable of withstanding the stresses
encountered under normal engine operating conditions;
k.

Failing to properly audit, monitor, evaluate, and ensure that vendors who

manufacture, forge, and/or sell, component parts installed in its aircraft, such as the internal
components of the CFM56-7B engine which malfunctioned during Flight 1380, to ensure
that the products they produce are safe, airworthy, met specifications, and did not contain
any features which would cause an engine malfunction;

1.

Failing to properly make the necessary design changes and or decisions to

discontinue or postpone service of those engines which potentially and/or in fact did
possess inherent design defects in their engines;

16

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 17 of 23

m.

Failing to provide the warnings necessary to make the subject engines safe

for use in commercial aircraft operation;
n.

Failing to act reasonably, prudently, and/or in accordance with the standard

of care in connection with the support, design, sale, manufacture, of the subject engine;
o.

Failing to act reasonably, prudently, and/or in accordance with the standard

of care for reasons to be developed in discovery of this action.
54.

As a direct and proximate cause of the forgoing breaches by the CFM Defendants

of duties it owed to Plaintiff, the subject CFM56-7B engine installed on the subject aircraft
experienced a catastrophic uncontained in-flight failure and Plaintiff suffered the injuries and
damages described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in her favor for the full
amount permitted by law including compensatory damages and punitive damages in light of the
facts, law and evidence, and also seeks any and all interest, costs and attorney's fees allowable.
COUNT IV: Strict Liability
Plaintiff vs. GE Aviation, Safran, Safran USA, and CFM

55.

Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

56.

The CFM Defendants are a manufacturer, seller, and designer and/or through

partnership, joint venture, agency or otherwise are a manufacturer, seller, and designer of
commercial aircraft including the subject aircraft.
57.

The CFM Defendants did manufacture, sell, and design the subject aircraft.

58.

The subject CFM56-7B engine was defectively designed in the following respects:
a.

The engine assembly was structurally deficient and otherwise lacked the

necessary safety features to ensure that any malfunction of the engine, including the type
experienced during Flight 1380, would be contained within the compartment;
17

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 18 of 23

b.

Engine assembly was failed to possess the necessary safety features to

contain any internal malfunction of the engine because it was not manufactured according
to specification or otherwise improperly constructed;
c.

The maintenance and inspection instructions concerning the CFM56-7B

engine were defective in that they failed to include all procedures and steps necessary to
prevent an uncontained engine failure;
d.

The fan blades used in the subject engine were defectively designed and/or

manufactured as they were forged improperly, casted improperly, and/or improperly
treated or hardened rendering them unfit for use in the subject aircraft;
e.

The fan blades used in the subject engine were defectively designed and/or

manufactured as they were structurally incapable of withstanding the vibratory, thermal,
or other stresses encountered in normal operation of the engine;
f.

The maintenance and inspection instructions concerning the engine internal

components such as fan blades were defective in that they failed to include all procedures
and steps necessary to prevent an engine failure or detect an impending engine failure such
as the one experienced in Flight 1380;
g.

The engine was defectively designed because they lacked all necessary

warnings to make them safe for use in commercial aircraft operation;
h.

The engine was defectively designed because it contained unsafe conditions

and features rendering it dangerous, susceptible to uncontained failure, susceptible to
fatigue fractures of the fan blades all of which were reasonably likely to occur between
inspection schedules;

18

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 19 of 23

1.

The engine was defectively designed for reasons that will be developed in

the discovery of this matter.
59.

The risks associated with the foregoing defects were so severe that they could cause

certain death in a commercial airline disaster that they outweighed any benefit to cost, production,
ease of manufacture, or otherwise.
60.

The nature of the design and/or manufacturing defects were so profound that no

ordinary user of the product would accept them.
61.

As a direct and proximate cause of the forgoing design defects, the subject CFM56-

7b engine installed on the subject aircraft experienced a catastrophic uncontained in-flight failure
and Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in Plaintiffs favor for
the full amount permitted by law including compensatory damages and punitive damages in light
of the facts, law and evidence, and also seeks any and all interest, costs and attorney's fees
allowable.

COUNT V: Breach of Express and Implied Warranties
Plaintiff vs. GE Aviation, Safran, Safran USA, and CFM
62.

Paragraphs 1 through 61 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

63.

The CFM Defendants are a manufacturer, seller, and designer and/or through

partnership, joint venture, agency or otherwise are a manufacturer, seller, and designer of
commercial aircraft including the subject aircraft.
64.

These defendants did manufacture, sell, and design the subject aircraft.

65.

The CFM Defendants warranted expressly and/or impliedly that the aircraft engines

were free of material defects, that they were merchantable and fit for the particular purpose

19

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 20 of 23

intended, that they were airworthy, that were safe for flight, and fit for use in commercial aircraft,
and that these warranties ran to Plaintiff as an intended and/or third-party beneficiary.
66.

The CFM Defendants described and advertised its products including the subject

model engine. Such descriptions and advertisements included, but were not limited to advertising
brochures, instructions, manuals, specification sheets, web-based information and other products,
statements and representations. These descriptions, representations and affirmations concerning
the goods and services of Defendant resulted in express warranties that the goods were as described
and sold for their intended use.
67.

These descriptions, representations, affirmations and express warranties became

part of the basis of the bargain of their sale and these warranties ran to Plaintiff upon which
Plaintiffs relied.
68.

Plaintiff was a member of the class to whom the warranties were intended to

69.

The CFM Defendants breached the express and implied warranties because:

protect.

a.

The engine assembly was structurally deficient and otherwise lacked the

necessary safety features to ensure that any malfunction of the engine, including the type
experienced during Flight 1380, would be contained within the compartment;
b.

The engine assembly was failed to possess the necessary safety features to

contain any internal malfunction of the engine because it was not manufactured according
to specification or otherwise improperly constructed;
c.

The maintenance and inspection instructions concerning the CFM56-7B

engine were defective in that they failed to include all procedures and steps necessary to
prevent an uncontained engine failure;

20

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 21 of 23

d.

The fan blades used in the subject engine were defectively designed and/or

manufactured as they were forged improperly, casted improperly, and/or improperly
treated or hardened rendering them unfit for use in the subject aircraft;
e.

The fan blades used in the subject engine were defectively designed and/or

manufactured as they were structurally incapable of withstanding the vibratory, thermal,
or other stresses encountered in normal operation of the engine;
f.

The maintenance and inspection instructions concerning the engine internal

components such as fan blades were defective in that they failed to include all procedures
and steps necessary to prevent an engine failure or detect an impending engine failure such
as the one experienced in Flight 1380;
g.

The engine was defectively designed because they lacked all necessary

warnings to make them safe for use in commercial aircraft operation;
h.

The engine was defectively designed for reasons that will be developed in

the discovery of this matter.
70.

As a direct and proximate cause of the forgoing breaches, the subject CFM56-7b

engine installed on the subject aircraft experienced a catastrophic uncontained in-flight failure and
Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in her favor for the full
amount permitted by law including compensatory damages and punitive damages in light of the
facts, law and evidence, and also seeks any and all interest, costs and attorney's fees allowable.
COUNT VI: Willful, Wanton, and Outrageous Misconduct
Plaintiff vs. Southwest, GE Aviation, Safran, Safran USA, and CFM
71.

Paragraphs 1 through 70 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

21

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 22 of 23

72.

The conduct giving rise to the breaches of duties owed by Southwest and the CFM

Defendants described above, are especially egregious and aggravated because they were
committed with knowledge that the subject aircraft engine had a dangerous design defect.
73.

This knowledge is detailed in paragraphs 13 through 24 above. These facts show

that the defendants, collectively and or individually, had actual knowledge of an unsafe condition
in the engine that had not been remedied since the last known failure only a year before Flight
1380.
74.

Despite knowing of the dangerous condition of the subject aircraft's engine, the

defendants risked the lives of more than a hundred innocent passengers, including Plaintiff, by
electing not to discontinue service with the use of aircraft equipped with these engines or otherwise
electing not to inform passengers of the nature of the existing dangerous condition.
75.

The Defendants knew that the evaluation of the failed engine components of Flight

34 72 was moving at a slow pace and that even though more than a year had passed a root cause of
the failure had not been corrected.
76.

Rather than protect the safety of Plaintiff and those who also were fare paying

customers, the defendants' misconduct placed profits and business over the safety of its customers
and continued to operate these engines even though there was confirmation that an unsafe
condition existed which had not been corrected since the failure that befell the 2016 incident
involving Flight 3472.
77.

Given the gravity of harm that could befall passengers in a commercial aircraft

which would be a certain catastrophe such as what befell Flight 1380 on April 17, 2018, these
defendants acted with malice, recklessness, and with disregard for the rights of others including
Plaintiff.

22

 Case 2:18-cv-01769-GAM Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 23 of 23

78.

As a direct and proximate cause of the forgoing misconduct, the subject CFM56-

7b engine experienced a catastrophic uncontained in-flight failure and Plaintiff suffered the
injuries and damages described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in her favor for the full
amount permitted by law including compensatory damages and punitive damages in light of the
facts, law and evidence, and also seeks any and all interest, costs and attorney's fees allowable.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff requests a jury trial to all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted this 26th Day of April, 2018.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

B~Ck(,(_,

KATZMAN, LAMPERT, & STOLL
121 North Wayne Ave. #205
Wayne, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 686-9686
Fax:
(610) 686-9687
bstoll@klm-law.com

23