SUMMONS - CIVIL Rev. 2-20 C.G.S. 51-346, 51?347, 51?349, 51-350, 52458, 5248, 52-259; RB. 3-1 through 3?21, 8-1, 10-13 instructions are on page 2. For information on STATE OF CONNECTICUT ADAaccommodations. COURT . contact a court clerk or go to: gov 7' Select if amount, legal interest. or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is LESS than $2,500. Select it amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is $2,500 or MORE. Select if claiming other relief in addition to, or in piece of, money or damages. TO: Any proper officer By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this summons and attached complaint. Address of court clerk (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk Return Date (Must be a Tuesday) 95 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106 (860 548 ~2700 July 7, 2020 Judicial District GA. At (City/Town) Case type code {See list on page 2) [3 Housing Session Number: Hartford Major: Minor: 20 For the plaintiffis) enter the appearance of: Name and address of attorney. law ?rm or if seEf-represented (Number, street, town and zip code) Shipman Goodwin One Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103 Jurls number (if attorney or law ?rm) 57385 Teiephone number (860 251 Signature of plaintiff (if self?represented) The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if seif?represented, agrees to accept papers (service) etectronically in this case under Section 30?13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. I Yes No E-mail address for delivery of papers under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book (if agreed) wronalter@goodwin.corn Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and address of each party (Number; street; FLO. Box; town; state; zip; country, if not USA) First Name: Debra A. Riddeti, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert G. Riddeii plaintiff Address: 103 Hatchet Hill Road, East Granby, CT 06026 . Additional Name; Debra A. Riddeil, individually P432 plaintiff Address: 103 Hatchet Hill Road, East Granby, CT 06026 First Name: The Ceilings Foundation 9-01 defendant Address: 568 Main Street, Hudson, MA 01749 Additional Name: The Ceilings Foundation, by and through its trustee, Robert F. Ceilings, Jr. 9?02 defendant Address: 32 Skyview Lane, Sudbury, MA 01776 Additional Name: The Ceilings Foundation, by and through its trustee, Donald Rising 0-03 defendant Address: 30 Elm Street, Stow, MA 01175 Additional Name; The Ceilings Foundation, by and through its trustee, William Boiler 0-04 defendant Address: 19701 Three Oaks Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 Total number of plaintiffs: to Total number of defendants:9 Form attached for additional parties Notice to each defendant 1. You are being sued. This is a summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached states the claims the plaintiff is making against you. 2. ?to receive further notices, you or your attorney must ?le an Appearance (form 39- Ct?12) with the clerk at the address above Generalty, it must be filed on or before the 0 nd day after the Return Date The Return Date Is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to court on the Return Date unless/y form at the court address a ove, or on-iine at httasrlliud.ctoov/webformsl. 4. if you believe that you ha, a ins rance that may cover the claim being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact 3. If you or you:r attorney do? its your insurance repres superior court law lib 5. if you have questio The court staff' Is no or 0 -line at d, 0 give advice on legal matters. receive a separate notice telling you to appear Appearance on time, a default judgment may be entered against you. You can get an Appearance ative. Other actions you may take are described in the Connecticut Practice 800k, which may be found in a urnmons and complaint, you should talk to an attorney. Date box) a .Commissioner of Superior Court Name Of 99-5550 5190309 06/04/2020 William J. Ronalter, Esq. ltthis summons is signed rk: For USE ?an a. The signing has been {?gso that the plaintiff(s) wilt not be denied access to the courts. me Date b. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff(s) to ensure that service is made in the manner provided by law. c. The court staff is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit. d. The Clerk signing this summons at the request of the plaintiff(s) is not responsibte in any way for any errors or omissions in the summons, any allegations contained in the complaint, or the service of the summons or complaint. 5 certify i have read and Signed (Self-represented plainti??) Date Docket Number understand the above: Page 1 of 2 CIVIL SUMMONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT CONTINUATION OF PARTIES SUPERIOR COURT Rev. 9-12 First named Plaintiff (Last, First, Middle initial) Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert G. Riddell First named Defendant (Last, First, Middle initial) The Ceilings Foundation Additional Plaintiffs Name (Last, First, Middle Initial, if individual) Address (Number, Street, Town and Zip Code) CODE Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co-Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner 193 Cail Hiils Road, Dresden, ME 04342 03 Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator of the Estate of James M. Roberts 61 Wylie Schooi Road, Voluntown, CT 06384 04 Huber, Joseph 4 West Point Terrace, Tariffville, CT 06081 05 Huber, Jenny 4 West Point Terrance, Tariffville, CT 06081 06 Schmidt, Thomas 55 Independence Road, Feeding Hills, MA 01030 07 Schmidt, Linda 55 Independence Road, Feeding Hills, MA 01030 08 Traficante, James - 21 North Drive, Simsbury, CT 06070 09 Barrett, Andrew 6 Oak Street South, Hadley, MA 01075 10 1 3 32 13 Additional Defendants Name (Last, First, Middle initial, if individual) Address (Number, Street, Town and Zip Code) CODE The Coliings Foundation, by and through its trustee, Frank Dworak 329 Pleasant Valley Road, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 05 The Collings Foundation, by and through its trustee, Gary Lewi 31 Westminster Road, Syosset, NY 1179145615 06 Ceilings, Robert F., Jr., Individualiy 32 Skyview Lane, Sudbury, MA 01776 07 The CCT of1979 317 Series LLC dlbla CCT of 1979 3-17 Series LLC 8-17 Series 08 RC. Box 248, Stow, MA 01775 The Ceilings Foundation, Inc. 137 Barton Road, Stow, MA 01775 09 10 1 1 FOR COURT USE ONLY - File Date 12 13 14 Docket number CIVIL SUMMONS?Continuation RETURN DATE: JULY 7, 2020 DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL, DEBRA A. RIDDELL, INDIVIDUALLY, CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER, JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS, JOSEPH HUBER, JENNY HUBER, THOMAS SCHMIDT, LINDA SCHMIDT, JAMES TRAFICANTE, AND ANDREW BARRETT V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES, ROBERT F. COLLINGS, JR., DONALD RISING, WILLIAM BOLLER, FRANK DWORAK AND GARY LEWI, THE CCT OF 1979 B17 SERIES LLC CCT OF 1979 B-17 SERIES LLC SERIES, ROBERT F. COLLINGS, JR, INDIVIDUALLY, AND THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. SH IPMAN 5 ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICHT - (Ram - :Av mam 9:1,:noo . SUPERIOR COURT .D. OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD JUNE 4, 2020 COUNSELORS AT LAW IDIQ hl? COMPLAINT Introduction 1. On October 2, 2019, a B-17G aircraft (the operated by The Collings Foundation crashed at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. The Crash was the result of the negligence, recklessness and callous indifference of The Collings Foundation and its agents, trustees, servants and/or employees that resulted in the horrific death of five passengers and serious and permanent bodily and emotional injury to five other passengers. The Plaintiffs 2. Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. . Riddell, was appointed Administratrix of her deceased husband?s estate by the Tobacco Valley Probate Court on December 4, 2019. A copy of the Certificate of Appointment is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. At the time of the crash, the decedent, Robert G. Riddell, and his wife, Debra A. Riddell, were residents of East Granby, Connecticut. 3.. Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, brings a claim for the exclusive benefit of the Estate of Robert G. Riddell; she also brings claims on her own behalf for loss of consortium and bystander emotional distress. 4. Plaintiffs, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rnbner, Co-Execntors for the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, were appointed co-executors of their deceased brother?s estate by the Tolland?Mansfield Probate Court on November 20, 2019. A copy of the Certificate of 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860} 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 Appointment is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. At the time of the crash, the decedent, Robert S. Rubner was a resident of Tolland, Connecticut and Scott Rubner was a resident of Enfield, Connecticut. Craig A. Rnbner was a resident of the State of Maine. 5. Plaintiffs, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors for the Estate of Robert S. Rubner bring this claim for the exclusive benefit of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner. 6. Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of antes M. Roberts, was appointed Administrator for his brother?s estate by the Norwich Probate Court on May 21, 2020. A copy of the Certificate of Appointment is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. At the time of the crash, the decedent, James M. Roberts, was a resident of Ludlow, Massachusetts and Joseph M. Roberts is a resident of Voluntown, Connecticut. 7 . Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, brings this claim for the exclusive benefit of the Estate of James M. Roberts. 8. Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, brings a bodily injury claim and his wife, Jenny Huber, brings a loss of consortium claim. At the time of the crash, the plaintiffs, Joseph and Jenny Huber, were residents of Sirnsbury, Connecticut. 9. Plaintiffs, Thomas Schmidt and Linda Schmidt, bring bodily injury claims. At the time of the crash, the plaintiffs, Thomas and Linda Schmidt, were residents of Feeding Hills, Massachusetts. 0 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD. 0?103~1919 I mam 951?5000 - FAX mam 9515099 . .Ii IRIS: NO 573125 10. Plaintiff, James Traficante, brings a bodily injury claim. At the time of the crash, the plaintiff, James Traficante, was a resident of Simsbury, Connecticut. 11. Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, brings a bodily injury claim. At the time of the crash, the plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, was a resident of South Hadley, Massachusetts. The Defendants 12. Defendant, The Collings Foundation, is a private foundation located in Stow, Massachusetts (hereinafter ?Collings?). 13. At all relevant times, Collings was operated by and through its executive director and trustees who include: Robert F. Collings, Jr. of Sudbury, Donald Rising of Stow, William Boller of Saratoga, Frank Dworak of Rocky Hill, CT and Gary Lewi of Syosset, New York who are named as defendants in this case in their capacities as trustees of Collings. l4. Collings was established in or about 1977 through a Declaration of Trust. 15. Collings initially focused on living history experiences such as carriage and sleigh rides, ice cutting festivals, and antique car rallies. 16. In the 19805, Collings? emphasis started to shift toward aviation and over time it acquired a ?eet of vintage aircraft valued in excess of $30 million; included among that ?eet was the B-17G. 17. In 2013, Collings was gifted a collection of military vehicles and parts (known as the ?Jacques M. Littlefield Collection?) valued at over $38 million. 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 061034919 {880) 251?5000 FAX (860} 251?5099 - NO 572185 18. Over time, Collings has amassed a fortune and in its 2017 IRS Form it reported that the fair market value of all of its assets exceeded $98 million. 19. Defendant, The Collings Foundation, Inc. is corporation located in Stow, Massachusetts (hereinafter ?Collings, Inc?) 20. In 2018, Collings, either itself or through the defendant Collings, Inc, opened the American Heritage Museum in Stow, Massachusetts to house and exhibit the Jacques M. Littlefield Collection. 21. Defendant, The CCT of 1979 B17 Series LLC d/b/a/ CCT of 1979 8?17 Series LLC SERIES of 1979"), is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Defendant, CCT of 1979, was the owner of the 17G on October 2, 2019, which has a registration number of N93012 and serial number 32264. 22. Defendant, Robert F. Collings, Jr., Collings? or the ?Executive Director?) is also named in his individual capacity as he is the Executive Director of Collings and is in direct control of the Safety Management System for all of Collings? ?ight operations. He is also the President of Collings, Inc. 23. Between 2008 and 2018, Mr. Collings? annual salary as Executive Director of Collings increased from approximately $33,000 to $375,000. 24. Ernest H. McCauley, was the Pilot in Command of the B-17G on October 2, 2019 McCauley? or the ?Pilot in Command?). He also served as Collings? Director L. 0 Fl 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, 061034919 . (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 of Maintenance for its Wings of Freedom Tour. At all relevant times, he was an employee or agent of Collings acting within the scope of his employment or agency. Factual Background The Wings of Freedom Tour 2 25. One of Collings? largest and most prominent annual activities was its ?Wings of Freedom Tour? (the Tour?) which visited over 110 cities each year. 26. Collings used the Tour to take paying passengers on short sightseeing trips aboard vintage World War II warplanes at airports across the United States, including airports in Connecticut. 27. From 2000 to October 2019, Collings annually (with the exception of 2015) held Tour stops at various Connecticut airports, taking paying passengers on short sightseeing trips aboard vintage World War military warplanes, including the 28. For some time prior to October 2, 2019, defendant, Collings, through its publicly accessible interactive website, and through print media in Connecticut, advertised and promoted the Tour, including its multiple planned stops in Connecticut. 29. Through its interactive website, Collings permitted the public, including residents of the State of Connecticut, to explore and access all types of information about Collings, participate in its programs, make donations and even purchase tickets for the Tour, including tickets to ?y on the Bml7G. LO 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 2516000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 30. Tickets for the October 2, 2019 sightseeing ride on the were $450 per passenger. 31. As part of its promotion of the Tour, Collings represented that: 0 Collings ?operates one of the world?s greatest collections of historic aircraft.? Collings? aircraft are ?maintained to the highest standards.? 0Collings? ?aircraft safety standards are second to none.? During the preflight briefings, Collings? passengers will be given ?a lot of safety tips.? 32. Collings did not, however, advertise or promote that the carried only a limited category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the implications of that limitation. 33. On October 2, 2019, Collings, the Executive Director and the Pilot in Command were each responsible for all operations of the including but not limited to maintenance, piloting, and passenger safety. 34. On that date, defendant, Collings, was acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, all of whom were acting within the scope of their employment and/or agency including, but not limited to, the Executive Director, Pilot in Command, co- pilot, and crew chief (the ?Crew Chief?) aboard the 35. The was a four engine heavy bomber manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in 1944 for the United States Army Air Corps. 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - RARTFOHD, CONNECTICUT 05103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO.57385 36. Because it was built so late in the war effort, it did not see combat and was repurposed several times until it was sold for scrap in 1965. 37. In or about January 1986, the was purchased by the Amended Collings Children?s Trust which, on or about February 3, 1986, registered it with the United States Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration 38. On or about June 20, 1994, the Amended Collings Children?s Trust applied to the FAA for a limited category Special Airworthiness Certificate for the 39. On June 28, 1994, the FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Certi?cate for the The airworthiness category was ?Limited? and certified that the B-17G did not meet the requirements of the applicable comprehensive and detailed airworthiness code as provide by Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. 40. Because it had only a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate, the B-17G was subject to several operating limitations notably, it was not permitted to carry passengers or cargo for compensation or hire. 41. On December 10, 2002, the FAA issued another Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate for the In addition to the aforementioned limitations, this Special Airworthiness Certificate imposed the following limitations on the operation of the - No person was permitted to Operate the unless the Special Airworthiness Certificate was displayed at the cockpit entrance so that it was visible to passengers and crew. 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 NO. 57385 0 All persons carried in ?ight aboard the 13?176, other than the pilot and co?pilot, were required to be seated in an approved seat with a seat belt fastened daring ground movement and take-off and landing operations. 0 An approved seat were those seats that meet the structural requirements of CAR 4b and are installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions. A placard reading the following was to be prominently diSplayed in the passenger compartment: This is a military type aircraft and under civil air regulations shall not be used for the carriage of passengers or cargo for compensation or hire. 42. On or about February 2, 2006, the Amended Collings Family Children?s Trust transferred ownership of the to CCT of 1979. On the date of the Crash, the 17G was registered to CCT of 1979 and was operated by Collings. . The FAA Exemption 43. Wishing to carry passengers for compensation or hire on the the defendant, Collings sought an exemption from the FAA to allow it to operate the (and other vintage World War II warplanes) for commercial sightseeing ?ights (the Exemption?) . 44. In or about 1996, the FAA granted Collins? request for the Exemption thus allowing Collings to carry passengers on local ?ights for compensation or hire on the B-17G and certain other vintage World War II warplanes. 45. The FAA conditioned the Exemption on Collings? promise to comply with specific conditions and limitations set forth in the Exemption. 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTECUT 06103?1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 NO. 57385 46. By its terms, the Exemption terminated two years from its date of issue unless sooner superseded or rescinded by the FAA. 47. Bi?annually, including on about September 11, 2017 (the ?2017 Petition?), Collings petitioned the FAA to extend and/or amend the Exemption. 48. As part of the 2017 Petition, Collings submitted to the FAA its Manual System (the ?Flight Manual System?) including its: General Operations Manual; (ii) General Maintenance Manual; Pilot Training and Operations Manual; and (iv) Safety Management System (SMS) Manual (the Safety Rules?). 49. In the 2017 Petition, Collings represented that its Safety Management System (SMS) Manual met the policy and criteria set forth by the FAA. 50. In its SMS Safety Rules, Collings represented, among other things, that: ?Collings holds safety above all else, and that all foundation members have always held safety as the first priority and developed a culture around it. 'Collings is committed to maintaining the highest level of safety in its efforts to preserve historic aircraft and educate the public. 0 Collings personnel are provided with the awareness, training and tools to implement the SMS. 0 Collings sets the safety standards by ensuring that everyone knows the standards and accepts them. 0 Collings is committed to providing the highest level of safety attainable in all of its activities and most especially when dealing with customers and guests. 10 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORQ, 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 NO. 57385 All personnel will be held accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities under this safety management system. The SMS Safety Rules are under the direct control of the Executive Director, Robert Collings. 51. In its General Operations Manual, Collings represented to the FAA, among other things, that: 0 It would issue a copy of the General Operations Manual to all ?ight crewmembers and maintenance personnel. 0 Its Director of Maintenance ensures that all inspection, repairs and component changes are accomplished in accordance with manufacturers or FAA approved procedures and ensures compliance with maintenance procedures, airworthiness directives, service bulletins, service letters, and applicable Federal Aviation Regulations. I Its Safety Officer trains ?ight crewmembers and maintenance personnel on the SMS Safety Rules and other safety related items. Its Pilot in Command will assign a crewmember or passenger prior to departure to assist any person who may need the assistance of another person during a possible emergency evacuation of the aircraft. 0 Its Pilot in Command will conduct or ensure that a trained crewmember conducts the brie?ng of all passengers as required by and in accordance with FAA exemption as amended prior to each take off. At least, the following items will be briefed: use of seat belts; (ii) location and means of opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits; location and operation of fire extinguishers; and (iv) that the has a limited category Special Airworthiness Certificate which means that the FAA has not established manufacturing standards for said category aircraft. In contrast, standard category airworthiness certificated aircraft are manufactured to approved standards, including standards addressing the design of aircraft and life?limited parts. 11 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JUFIIS NO.57385 The Pilot in Command will brief any person who may need the assistance of another person to move expeditiously to an exit in an emergency regarding the location of the nearest emergency exit and the procedures to be followed so that the handicapped person is evacuated without delaying the evacuation of others on board the aircraft. - Only crewmembers trained and qualified in accordance with the applicable regulations will be assigned to conduct a ?ight. 52. In its General Maintenance Manual, Collings represented to the FAA, among other things, that: - Collings always focuses on safety first. 0 All maintenance personnel will be properly trained in the policies and procedures required to perform their duties and scored knowledge tests will be administered covering subject material. 0 Prior to participating in LHFE duties, each Collings employee shall undergo indoctrination training regarding; FAA rules and regulations; (ii) Collings policies and organization; Collings Maintenance, Operations and SMS Safety manuals; (iv) technical manuals; and safety and fire control. 0 It would follow the procedures for maintenance, preventive maintenance, servicing and inspections found in its aircraft maintenance manuals. 53. Based on the 2017 Petition, its attachments and the representations made therein, on March 22, 2018, the FAA issued Exemption No. 6540P, extending and amending the Exemption for the last time (the ?Final Exemption?). 54. The Final Exemption granted Collings ?an exemption from 14 CFR 91.9, 91.315, and (2), and 119.2] to operate certain aircra?for the purpose of carrying passengers for compensation or hire in accordance with the FAA Policy 12 0 E. AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JHRIS NO. 57385 for living history ?ight experiences (LHFE), subject to the conditions and limitations set forth [in the exemption]. 55. The Final Exemption was expressly limited to 10 warplanes to be Operated by Collings, including the 56. Notwithstanding its characterization as an exemption, The Final Exemption imposed on Collings specific limitations, restrictions and conditions on its operation of the warplanes it covered. Those limitations, restrictions and conditions included, but were not limited to the following: 0 Condition and Limitation 2 Maintain and apply, on a continuous basis, an operational control structure that meets the criteria specified in the FAA living history ?ight experiences policy published on July 21, 2015 (the Policy?). 0 Condition and Limitation 3 Maintain and apply, on a continuous basis, its manual system, to include all documents contained therein, for all operations subject to this Exemption. Condition and Limitation 4 Ensure that all persons that participate in Collings? programs and operations under the Exemption must be initially and annually trained on the contents and application of Collings? manual system, safety and risk management program and the conditions and limitations set forth in the Exemption. 0 Condition and Limitation 5 .. Maintain and apply on a continuous basis its safety and risk management program for all operations subject to the Exemption. 0 Condition and Limitation 6 Maintain all aircraft subject to the Exemption in accordance with its General Maintenance Manual, FAA?approved maintenance inSpection program and appropriate military technical manuals. l3 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 0 Condition and Limitation ll Before carrying any passenger for compensation or hire on an airplane covered by the Exemption, Collings must inform that passenger of the type of airworthiness certificate held, and the signi?cance of that certificate as compared to a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. 0 Condition and Limitation 19 Prior to ?ight, the Pilot in Command must ensure that a passenger brie?ng meeting the scope and content of 14 CFR 135.117 has been provided to the passengers. 57. Unless expressly exempt under the Final Exemption, Collings was required to Operate the in accordance with all applicable FAA rules and regulations. These regulations included, but were not limited to the following: 14 CFR 91.13 which mandated that no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. 0 14 CFR 91.107 which mandated, among other things, that: no pilot be permitted to take off unless he/she ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt; (ii) each person on board occupies an approved seat or berth with a safety belt; and use of the floor as a seat on the aircraft is not permitted unless the passenger is engaging in the sport of parachuting . 0 14 CFR 135.87 which mandated, among other things, that no cargo be carried on the unless it was properly secured, packaged or covered to avoid possible injury to occupants of the aircraft. 0 14 CFR 135.117 which mandated, among other things, that the pilot in command ensure that all passengers on the were orally briefed on, among other things, the: use of safety belts, including instructions on how to fasten and unfasten the safety belts; (ii) location and means of opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits; location and operation of fire extinguishers; and (iv) procedures to be followed by a person who may need the assistance of another to move expeditiously to an exit if an emergency occurs. 14 L0 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251~5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 0 14 CFR 135.117 also required that the oral briefing be supplemented with printed cards that were appropriate for the and, among other things, contained a diagram of, and method of Operating, the emergency exits and contained other instructions necessary for the use of emergency equipment on board the 17 G. 58. Likewise, While operating into and out of Connecticut airports, Collings was required to operate the in accordance with all applicable state statutes, including Conn. Gen. Stat. 15-72 which prohibited the operation of an aircraft carelessly, negligently or recklessly, or in such a manner as to endanger the property, life or limb of any person. Collings? Operation of the B-17G on October 2, 2019 59. On October 2, 2019, Collings held a Tour stop at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. 60. That morning, the B-17G was scheduled to take two sightseeing ?ights, the first at 9:00 A.M. and a second at 9:30 A.M. 61. Andrew Barrett, David Broderick, Joseph Huber, Gary Mazzone, Robert G. Riddell, James Roberts, Robert S. Rubrier, Linda Schmidt, Thomas Schmidt, and James Traficante were passengers (collectively referred to as the ?Passengers on the 9:00 A.M. flight. 62. Shortly before the ?ight was scheduled to depart, the Crew Chief escorted the Passengers out to the and gave them a brief orientation about the plane. 15 LO 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-19?i9 teem 251-5000 FAX ream 251-5099 .JURIS 63. Thomas and Linda Schmidt were the first passengers allowed to board the plane. 64. Despite the requirement of 13 CFR 91.107 that all passengers on board occupy an approved seat, the Schmidts had to sit on the ?oor directly behind the cockpit and below the top turret. 65. Likewise, despite the requirements of Collings? General Operations Manual, Condition and Limitation No. 19 of the Final Exemption and 13 CFR 135.117, the Schmidts were never instructed on how to fasten or unfasten their seat belts; the location and means of opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits; or the location and operation of fire extinguishers. 66. Instead, the Schmidts where left to figure out how to fasten the unfamiliar . military style buckles and the Crew Chief warned them not to tighten their extremely loose seatbelts because they would be too difficult to readjust after the flight. 67. Because of the foregoing omissions and instructions by Collings, the Schmidts sat on the ?oor for both the take-off and the crash landing, never had the benefit of preperly secured seatbelts and lacked even the most basic understanding of how to exit the plane in the event of an emergency. 68. After the Schmidts, Robert S. Rubner and David Broderick boarded the B- 17G both men were seated inside the radio room. 16 0 Fl AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA . HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX {860) 2516099 JURIS NO. 57385 69. Mr. Rubner suffered from significant physical limitations and needed a walker to get from the terminal to the B-17G. He also required assistance from the Crew Chief and another passenger to board the plane. 70. Despite Collings? own rule that ?all passengers have the ability to safely exit the aircraft without much assistance in case of an emergency?, Mr. Rnbner was permitted to board the 71. Despite the requirement of 13 CFR 91.107 that all passengers on board occupy an approved seat, Mr. Rubner was seated in an office type swivel seat and Mr. Broderick was seated on the floor. 72. The final six passengers, Andrew Barrett, James Huber, Gary Mazzone, Robert Riddell, James Roberts and James raficante were all instructed to sit in the main fuselage of the 73. Despite the requirement of 13 CFR 91.107 that all passengers on board occupy an approved seat, the six passengers in the main fuselage of the also had to sit on the ?oor, shoulder to shoulder with each other. 74. Likewise, despite the requirements of Collings? General Operations Manual, Condition and Limitation No. 19 of the Final Exemption and 13 CFR 135.117, the six passengers in the main fuselage of the were never instructed on how to fasten or unfasten their seat belts; the location and means of opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits; or the location and operation of fire extinguishers. 17 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251 -5099 JURIS NO.57385 75. Like the Schmidts, Mr. Barrett?s seatbelt was extremely loose and he was unable to tighten it adequately. The Crew Chief told him not to worry about it. 76. Mr. Barrett also found the unfamiliar military style buckle dif?cult to use. After he was ?nally able to get it buckled, he assisted Mr. Roberts and Mr. Mazzone, who were struggling with their buckles. 77. The buckle on Mr. Huber?s seatbelt was broken and did not work. During take?off and the crash landing, he was unable to secure his seatbelt and was, therefore, completely unrestrained at the time of the crash. 78. Because of the foregoing omissions and instructions by Collings, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Huber, Mr. Mazzone, Mr. Riddell and Mr. Roberts each sat on the ?oor for both the takeoff and the crash landing, never had the benefit of properly secured seatbelts and lacked even the most basic understanding of how to exit the plane in the event of an emergency. 79. Mr. Traficante is the Command Chief Master Sergeant for the 103d Airlift Wing, at the Bradley Air National Guard Base and at the time of the crash had over 5,3 00 ?ight hours. He was familiar with the military style buckle and was able to buckle it without dif?culty. With some difficulty, he was able to tighten his seatbelt. 80. Because of the foregoing omissions and instructions by Collings, Mr. Traficante sat on the floor for both the take?off and the crash landing and was never provided with even the most basic explanation of how to exit the plane in the event of an 18 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTSCUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 emergency. Fortunately, Mr. raficante had observed the Crew Chief secure the rear hatch prior to take off and was thus familiar with how it worked. 81. Prior to take off, Mr. Riddell struggled to get his seatbelt buckled. Mr. Tra?cante assisted him in securing it. 82. Despite the requirements of the airworthiness certi?cate, Collings? Flight Manual System and Condition and Limitation No. 11 of the Final Exemption, Collings never informed the Passengers that the plane had only a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of that certificate as compared to a standard airworthiness certificate. 83. After boarding the 13?178, the Passengers waited for approximately 40 minutes as the pilots and the Crew Chief struggled to get the engines on the right side of the plane started. 84. During this time, the co-pilot reported to the Passengers that they were having trouble starting the Number 4 engine but that it was ?nothing to be concerned about.? He stated that this is ?normal? when it is wet and humid. 85. After the engines finally started, the Crew Chief re?boarded the plane and walked through the tail gunners? section. At that time, he told the Passengers that the ?magnetos were wet and that they blew them out with some nitrogen.? 86. As he walked through, he did not check to see if the Passengers? seatbelts were secured or offer any additional safety information about the ?ight. 19 0 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (360) 251?5000 FAX (850) 251-5099 JURIS 57385 87. Prior to the Crash, Collings, its agents, servants, and/or employees never provided any instructions or assistance to the passengers on how to use the seatbelts or inspected the seatbelts to ensure they were properly fastened. 88. Instead, the Crew Chief instructed some passengers not to adjust or tighten their seatbelts even though the seatbelts did not fit properly. 89. Likewise, prior to the Crash, Collings, its agents, servants, and/or employees never told the passengers where to exit the plane, nor how to open the rear hatch in an event of an emergency, nor what to do in the event of an emergency nor provided them with supplemental safety cards as required by 14 CFR 135.117. 90. Despite the requirement of 14 CFR 135.87 which mandated that no cargo be carried on the unless it was properly secured, packaged or covered to avoid possible injury to occupants of the aircraft, steel wheel checks were stacked, unrestrained, in the tail gunners? section. 91. These steel wheel Chocks became deadly projectiles during the crash. 92. Collings? Flight Manual System and Condition and Limitation No. 4 of the Final Exemption required Collings to provide its personnel with initial and annual training regarding its operations. Condition No. 4 reads as follows: ?[ijn order to participate in Collings? program and operations, persons must initially, and on an ongoing annual basis, receive training appropriate to their position on the contents and application of Collings ?s 20 0 Fl AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 manual system, safety, and risk management program, and the conditions and limitations set forth in this [ijemption 93. Collings did not adequately train its Crew Chief as required by its Flight Manual System and Condition and Limitation No. 4 of the Final Exemption. 94. In particular, the Crew Chief received no initial training and was unaware of basic information concerning the contents and application of Collings? manual system, safety, and risk management program, and the conditions and limitations set forth in the Final Exemption. 95. Collings did not even provide for worker?s compensation insurance for its Crew Chief, but instead paid him in cash. 96. Unbeknownst to the Passengers, on the day before the Crash the 8?17 experienced roughness in the two engines on the right hand side of the plane engines Nothe morning of the Crash and prior to takeoff, the again experienced problems with those engines. Those problems delayed the ?ight by over 40 minutes as the crew struggled to start the engines. 98. In response to the on?going engine problems, the Crew Chief recommended to the Pilot in Command that additional maintenance be completed before the took off that morning. 21 0 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 08103?1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX {860) 2516099 JURES NO, 57385 99. Despite the recurring problems with engines No. 3 and No. 4 and the Crew Chief?s recommendation that additional maintenance be performed, the co?pilot assured the Passengers that there was ?nothing to be concerned with. 100. The Pilot in Command was also Collings? Director of Maintenance for all of the aircraft on the Tour, including the 101. As Pilot in Command and Director of Maintenance, he dismissed the Crew Chief?s recommendation for additional maintenance and authorized the to take off once engines No. 3 and No. 4 were finally started. 102. Because of the Pilot in Command?s dual role, Collings did not have a structure in place that ensured adequate oversight of his decisions to conduct passenger- carrying operations, including the ?ight of the on October 2, 2019. 103. Prior to takeoff, a run?up of the engines should have been performed by the Pilot in Command of the 104. If such a run-up were performed, it would have further revealed that there were problems with engines No. 3 and No.4 and that additional maintenance and review was necessary before takeoff. 105. The Pilot in Command did not provide or authorize a proper tuneup before take?off. 22 0 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 JURIS NO. 57385 The Crash 106. On October 2, 2019, the B-17G departed Bradley International Airport at 9:48 A.M with the Passengers onboard. 107. This departure was 48 minutes behind schedule and was 18 minutes after the was scheduled to depart on its second sightseeing trip of the day. 108. Immediately after takeoff, the Crew Chief signaled to the Passengers that they could get up and explore the B-17G. 109. The Schmidts, the passengers in the main fuselage section and, presumably Mr. Rubner and Mr. Broderick, all got up from where they were sitting and began to explore the plane. 110. At that time, the B-17G was having trouble gaining altitude and seemed to be struggling. 111. An eyewitness on the ground reported that shortly after takeoff he heard an engine on the ?sputter? and watched as smoke came straight back from engine No. 3. 112. Shortly after takeoff and without any explanation, the Crew Chief signaled to the Passengers that they needed to sit back down and buckle up. 113. The then took a non?coordinated turn and the of the engines was off. 23 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 253-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 114. With the assistance of Mr. Huber and his cell phone, Mr. Traficante was able to observe the engines on both sides of the Engines No. 1 and No. 2 (on the left side) appeared to be operating ?ne. Engine No. 3 was not running smoothly at all and Engine No. 4 was shut down . 115. Approximately one minute after takeoff, the Pilot in Command radioed Air Traffic Control and advised, ?We would like to return to the ?eld. 116. At that time, the B-17G was about 500 feet above ground level. 117. Air Traf?c Control veri?ed the request and asked if the required any assistance, to which the Pilot in Command replied ?negative.? 118. Air Traffic Control then asked for the reason for the return to the airport, and the Pilot in Command replied that the had ?a rough mag on number 4 engine we would like to return [to blow] it our.? 119. Air Traf?c Control then instructed the Pilot in Command to ?y a right downwind leg for runway 6 and confirmed that the ?ight needed an immediate landing. 120. Air Traffic Control then cancelled the approach of another airplane and advised the Pilot in Command to proceed however necessary to runway 6. 121. The Pilot in Command acknowledged the landing clearance; at that time, the B-17G was about 300 feet above ground level on a midfield right downwind leg for runway 6. 24 l. AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 2515099 JUHIS NO. 57385 122. Air Traffic Control asked about the progress to the runway and the Pilot in Command replied, ?We?ll get there, mid?eld downwind now. 123. Despite the problems with the engines, the Pilot in Command never declared an emergency and denied needing any assistance. 124. Neither (the Pilot in Command nor any of the other crewmernber informed the Passengers of the ?ight?s peril, advised them what to do or instructed them to brace for a crash. The Passengers were left to presume what was happening. 125. The next struck the airport approach lights about 1,000 feet prior to the runway, then contacted the ground about 500 feet prior to the runway before reaching runway 6. 126. The then veered right off the runway before colliding with vehicles and a deicing ?uid tank about 1,100 feet right of the center of the runway threshold. 127. The Crash and subsequent collision were violent. It ejected many of the Passengers from where they were sitting and turned unsecured cargo into dangerous projectiles. 128. A fire started immediately in the fuselage, blocking the Schmidts, Mr. Broderick and Mr. Rubner from being able to exit the through the only exit they were aware of - the rear door in the main fuselage . 129. Notwithstanding their fear and confusion, the Schmidts were able to pull themselves out of the through a shattered window in the rear of the cockpit. They 25 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUWON PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (860)251?5000 FAX (860) 251 ~5099 JURIS NO. 57385 pushed themselves out the window and fell to the deicing tank below sustaining serious and permanent personal injuries. 130. Mr. Broderick and Mr. Rubner were not as lucky they both perished. 131. Mr. Traficante was seated closest to the rear hatch in the main fuselage . Because he had watched the Crew Chief secure the hatch before take?off, he knew how to open the hatch and was able to exit the plane and assist others in doing so. 132. The impact ejected Mr. Barrett from his seatbelt. He struck his head on something but was able to stand up and move about the main fuselage. Seeing the advancing fire, Mr. Barrett followed the light from the open hatch in the rear of the main fuselage and was able to get off the plane. 133. The impact ejected Mr. Roberts from his seatbelt. He never got off the 17G and perished in the fire. 134. The impact ejected Mr. Riddell from his seatbelt. He never got off the 17G and perished in the fire. 135. The impact also ejected Mr. Mazzone from his seatbelt. He never got off the 347 and also perished in the fire. 136. The impact also ejected Mr. Huber from his seatbelt and threw him toward the front of the main fuselage . Although severally injured and brie?y knocked unconscious Mr. Huber pulled himself through the debris and was able to exit through the rear hatch. 26 1. 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, 05103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 137. In total, the Crash killed 5 passengers and seriously injured 5 other passengers. 138. The Pilot in Command and compilot were killed. 139. The Crew Chief was also seriously injured. The Investigation 140. After the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board (the and the Federal Aviation Administration (the inSpected engines No. 3 and No. 4 on the 141. The inspection revealed magneto and ignition failures. 142. In particular, with respect to engine No. 4, the investigation revealed the following: 0 Someone had attempted to rig the magneto leads in place with safety wire to prevent the magneto lead from separating from the magnetos. 0n the left magneto, movement of the safety?wired lead caused grounding, which rendered the magneto lead inoperative. 0 Engine No. 4?s right magneto was found to he unserviceable. The cam follower was worn beyond limits and the point gap was less than half the measurement required by service documents. The right magneto produced weak or no spark to four of the nine cylinders. All spark plugs required cleaning and all electrode gaps were out of tolerance. 0 Engine No. 4 showed signs of detonation and associated damage. 143. With respect to engine No. 3, the investigation revealed the following: ?The spark plug electrode gaps were out of tolerance, fouled and revealed various signs of detonation. 27 0 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (850) 251-5000 0 FAX (860) 2515099 NO.57385 0 Problems with the engines cylinders. 144. The problems identified above with respect to engines No. 3 and No. 4 indicate that the was not maintained in accordance with Collings? Flight Manual System. 145. Moreover, Collings? maintenance records for the B-17G lack key information and in some cases indicate that maintenance was either not performed at all or was performed in a manner contrary to the Collings General Maintenance Manual, appropriate military technical manuals and the Final Exemption. FIRST COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. COLLINGS - WRONGFUL DEATH PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. ST. ?52u555 - NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty- five (145) and alleges further: 146. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final 28 LO 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (880) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-17G prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run-up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; 29 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 05103?1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO.57385 j. IN THAT the defendant failed 'to conduct a reasonable pro-?ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; 111. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 3O 0 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 147. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the B-17G to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Defendant Collings? negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert G. Riddell. 148. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert G. Riddell, suffered terror, ante-mortern pain and suffering, destruction of the ability to enjoy life?s activities, a complete destruction of his earning capacity, and death. 149. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert G. Riddell has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 31 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 251 -5000 - FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 . I I. SECOND COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52?555) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 150. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-flight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 32 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (880) 251?5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS No.57385 (1. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run-up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre-flight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its flight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actualgly worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the B-17G was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the floor in Violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; 33 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (850) 251-5000 FAX (880) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; rn. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 11944 and subsequent revisions; n. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 3. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to 34 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, 081033919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 t. THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel Wheel chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in Violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 151. In the time period leading up to October 2, 2019, Collings was more focused on opening and operating its American Heritage Museum, growing its assets and increasing the compensation of its Executive Director than it was on ensuring compliance with its promises to the FAA, its regulatory obligations and the terms and conditions of its own Flight Manual System. 152. Indeed, Collings made the aforementioned choices with the knowledge that the choices put passenger safety at risk. 153. Defendant Collings? reckless conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert G. Riddell. 154. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert G. Riddell, suffered terror, ante-mortem pain and suffering, destruction of the ability to enjoy life?s activities, a complete destruction of earning capacity, and death. 155. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert G. Riddell has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 156. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys? fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. 35 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?l919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 {fax ?x ,1 THIRD COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. CCT OF 1979; WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52?555) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty~five (145) and alleges further: 157. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 21. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are pr0perly fastened and what to do in an emergency; 36 0 0 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run-rip prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable prew?ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbeit that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; r1. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate; 37 0 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUWON PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (880) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107, 14 CPR. ?135.ll7 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b . 362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and 38 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 158. Defendant CCT of 1979?s negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert G. Riddell. 159. As a direct result of defendant CCT of 1979?s conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert G. Riddell, suffered terror, ante?mortem pain and suffering, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, a complete destruction of his earning capacity, and death. 160. As a direct result of defendant CCT of 1979?s conduct, The Estate of Robert G. Riddell has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. FOURTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. MR. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52-555) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 161. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 39 LO 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251 6099 JURIS No.57885 a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own. SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; (1. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-17G prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; 40 SHIPMANEFGOODWINLLPE 0 1. 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (860) 251~5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; in IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing Operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?9l.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 41 C) i. AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 NO. 57385 162. (KMK 1 I. . i . IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Defendant Mr. Collings? negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert G. Riddell. 163. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, plaintiff?s decedent, Robert G. Riddell, suffered terror, ante?mortern pain and suffering, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, a complete destruction of his earning capacity, and death. 164. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert G. Riddell has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 42 COUNSELLOHS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860)251-5099 NO. 57385 FIFTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. MR. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52-555) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-?five (145) and alleges further: 165. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appr0priate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pro??ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 43 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 2515000 FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 (1. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run?up prior to take?off because the BAI7G ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre?flight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and takeoff and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the B-17G and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91. 107LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT (36103?1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and takew off and landing operations; 111. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 11944 and subsequent revisions; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; s. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to flyLAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 08103-1919 (860) 2515000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 t. IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 166. Defendant Mr. Collings? reckless conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert G. Riddell. 167. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert G. Riddell, suffered terror, ante-mortern pain and suffering, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, a complete destruction of earning capacity, and death. 168. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert G. Riddell has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 169. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys? fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. SIXTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL V. COLLINGS -- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one 1) through one hundred and forty?nine (149) and alleges further: 170. As a result of the defendant?s negligence and carelessness, the plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of love, society, affection, 46 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 2516099 NO. 57385 companionship and consortium of her husband, Robert G. Riddell, to her further loss and damage. SEVENTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL V. CCT OF 1979 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one hundred and fifty?seven (157) through one hundred and sixty (160) of the Third Count. 171. As a result of the defendant?s negligence and carelessness, the plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of love, society, affection, companionship and consortium of her husband, Robert G. Riddell, to her further loss and damage. EIGHTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL V. MR. COLLINGS -- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and fortwaive (145) and alleges further 47 1.. AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA 06103?1939 (850) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one hundred and sixty?one (161) through one hundred sixty?four (164) of the Fourth Count. 172. As a result of the defendant?s negligence and carelessness, the plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of love, society, affection, companionship and consortium of her husband, Robert G. Riddell, to her further loss and damage. NINTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL V. COLLINGS BYSTANDER CLAIM) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?nine (149) and alleges further: 173. The plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, was standing outside at Bradley Airport watching her husband, Robert G. Riddell, ride on the She contemporaneously observed the coming in for a landing, disappear brie?y behind a building, and then she heard and saw an explosion from the Crash. 174. As a result of the events described above, the plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, has suffered severe, debilitating, and lasting mental and emotional shock to her system beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances. 48 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (850) 2516000 FAX (860)251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 175. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, for her bystander emotional distress claim. TENTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL V. CCT OF 1979 -- BYSTANDER CLAIM) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one hundred and fifty?seven (157) through one hundred and sixty (160) of the Third Count. Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one hundred and seventy-three (173) through one hundred and seventy-five (175) of the Ninth Count. ELEVENTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL V. MR. COLLINGS BYSTANDER CLAIM) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty??ve (145) and alleges further: 49 LO AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 2516000 251-5099 NO.57385 Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one hundred and sixty?one (161) through one hundred and sixty-four (164) of the Fourth Count. Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one hundred and seventy?three (173) through one hundred and seventy~five (175) of the Ninth Count. TWELFTH COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52~555) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rnbner, Co~Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 176. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; 50 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS NO.57385 b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had suf?cient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre?flight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run-up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre-?ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 51 0 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX {860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 {,qu 1 IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in Violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; 52 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION HARTFORDMCONNECTICHT 06103-1919 (sam 241-500?) - FAX mam 951-5099 - ND 5738.4 t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b . 362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to w. IN THAT despite the defendant advertising that it did not allow passengers on its ?ights with disabilities because all passengers needed to be able to quickly reach the exit during an emergency, Collings allowed Robert S. Rubner to be a passenger on the when it knew or should have known that he was disabled and could not reach the emergency exit in the event of an emergency from the location where he was seated; and x. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 177. Defendant Collings? negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert S. Rubner. 178. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert S. Rubner, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, and death. 179. As a direct?result of defendant Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert S. Rubner has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 53 0 Fl 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. 06103-1919 {86032516000 FAX {850l251?5099 - ND 57335 THIRTEENTH COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52-555) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rnbner and Scott Rubner, Co?Execntors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 180. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 54 0 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. 06103?1919 {860) 253-5000 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary runwnp prior to take-?off because the B-17G ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the B47 scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre-?ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to prOperly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the floor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers! into the and make more money by putting them on the floor in Violation of 14 C.F.R. ?9l.107; 55 L. 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (BBOI 2516000 FAX (86m 251?5099 - JURIS 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; In. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b; 8. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the B-17G to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to 56 1-: t. 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTETUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX {860) 2516099 - No.57385 181. IN THAT despite the defendant advertising that it did not allow passengers on its ?ights with disabilities because all passengers needed to be able to quickly reach the exit during an emergency, Collings chose to allow Robert S. Rubner to be a passenger on the and collect his $450 when it knew that he was disabled and could not reach the emergency exit in the event of an emergency from the location where he was seated; and IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel Wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in Violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Defendant Collings? reckless conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert S. Rubner. 182. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert S. Rubner, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life?s activities, and death. 183. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert G. Riddell has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 184. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. 57 - counssLons AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251?5000 FAX {860) 25?~5099 JURIS NO.57385 FOURTEENTH COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. CCT OF 1979; WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52~555) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co~Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty~?ve (145) and alleges further: 185. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-?ight passenger brie?ng, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; 58 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTSOHD. 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 257-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary runwup prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the B-17G and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre-?ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; 111. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 59 C, LO 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1939 (860) 2516000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and takeoff and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. ?l35.ll7 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b . 362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and 60 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034 919 - (860)251-5000 FAX (560) rest-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel cheeks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 186. Defendant CCT of 1979?s negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert S. Rubner. 187. As a direct result of defendant CCT of 1979?s conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert S. Rubner, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, and death. 188. As a direct result of defendant CCT of 1979?s conduct, The Estate of Robert G. Riddell has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. FIFTEENTH COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. MR. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52-555) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Ruber, ComExecutors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 189. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 61 1, 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTJON PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 2516000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - NO. 57385 a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traf?c Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the B-17G to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; 62 - 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-19t9 . (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre-flight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; I. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; tn. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the B-17G was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?9l.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 63 0 l. 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 190. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97, Defendant Mr. Collings.? negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert S. Rubner. 191. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert S. Rubuer, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, and death. 192. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert S. Rubner has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 64 COUNSELOFIS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT DEEDS-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 SIXTEENTH COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. MR. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52-555) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, ComExecutors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 193. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 3. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the General Operating and Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper prew?ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 65 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary runwup prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the B-17 scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the B-17 was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91. 107; 66' 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; In. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 3. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to fly; and 67 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 JUREB No.57385 t. TN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 194. Defendant Mr. Collings? reckless conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of Robert S. Rubner. 195. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, Robert S. Rubner, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, and death. 196. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, The Estate of Robert S. Rnbner has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 197. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys? fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. SEVENTEENTH COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52?555) Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 198. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting 68 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-?ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the flight to safely land the B-17G and avoid the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; 69 - COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 25i-5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS NO.57385 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable prew?ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; I. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; In. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certi?cate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide ali passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in 70 i. 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JUHIS NO. 57385 199. violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 1N THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and 1N THAT the defendant failed to improperly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CF 135.97. Defendant Collings? negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of James M. Roberts. 200. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, plaintiff?s decedent, James M. Roberts, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, complete destruction of earning capacity, and death. 201. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, The Estate of James M. Roberts has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 71 - COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860)251-5099 NO.57385 EIGHTEENTH COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52-555) Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 202. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 21. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; 19. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, I . Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pro-flight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructng passengers on what to do in an emergency; 72 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061053919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860)251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run?up prior to take~off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the B-17G was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing Operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?9l. 107; 73 - 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06t03~1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; In. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; n. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 8. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to and 74 LO Ar LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06303-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) asr-soss - NO. 57385 t. IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel Wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in Violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 203. Defendant Collings? reckless conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of James M. Roberts. 204. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, James M. Roberts, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, a complete destruction of earning capacity, and death. 205. As a direct result of defendant Collings? conduct, The Estate of James M. Roberts has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 206. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. NINETEENTH COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. CCT OF 1979; WRONGF UL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52?555) Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty~five (145) and alleges further: 207. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, 75 2.0 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORB, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251?5000 . FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Ceilings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Coilings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-?flight passenger brie?ng, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon tosuppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; 76 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTECUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre~flight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; In. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 77 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (880) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 208. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B4176 was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107, l4 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Defendant CCT of 1979?s negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of James M. Roberts. 209. As a direct result of Defendant CCT of 1979?s conduct, Plaintiff's decedent, James M. Roberts, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, a complete destruction of earning capacity, and death. 78 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA . HARTFORD, 06103?1919 (860) 251-5000 JURIS NO. 57385 210. As a direct result of defendant CCT of 1979?s conduct, The Estate of James M. Roberts has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. TWENTIEETH COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. MR. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52-555) Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 211. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 21. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-?ight passenger briefing, the 79 L0 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD. CONNECTECUT 05103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 . FAX (860) 2516099 - JURIS NO. 57385 importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the Bml7G and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; In. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 80 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?~19t9 (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 25t-5099 . JURIS NO. 57385 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and takeoff and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt ?and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.ll7 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for Opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; 81 0 i. AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (850) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 V. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 212. Defendant Mr. Collings? negligent conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of James M. Roberts. 213. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, James M. Roberts, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, a complete destruction of earning capacity, and death. 214. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, The Estate of James M. Roberts has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. MR. WRONGFUL CONN. GEN. ST. ?52~555) Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 215. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and 82 FI 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3919 0 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre~flight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary runmup prior to take-off because the B-17G ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable prem?ight safety brie?ng with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; 83 counssLons AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the B-17G was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the signi?cance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91. 107; 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; m. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 84 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 {860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 216. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.; IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Defendant Mr. Collings? reckless conduct, as aforesaid, directly and proximately resulted in the Crash, injuries, suffering and death of James M. Roberts. 217. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, plaintiff's decedent, James M. Roberts, suffered terror, destruction of the ability to enjoy life?s activities, a complete destruction of earning capacity, and death. 85 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA 061034919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 218. As a direct result of defendant Mr. Collings? conduct, The Estate of James M. Roberts has incurred funeral expenses to its financial loss. 219. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys? fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. TWENTY-SECOND COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 220. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more "of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; 86 - 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034 919 . (860) 251-5000 - FAX (850) 251-5099 - aunts NO. 57385 c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-17G prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the ?re earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; 87 a 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and takeoff and landing Operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; 88 5 L0 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 - (860} 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in Violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the B-17G to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and W. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 221. As a result of the defendant?s conduct and resulting Crash, the plaintiff, was on fire and required assistance from plaintiff, James Traficante, to put the fire on him out. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff, Joseph Huber, was put into a medically induced coma and required mechanical ventilation and feeding. His burn injuries led to complications, including infections and evidence of end organ dysfunction. The plaintiff sustained injuries of a severe and permanent nature and as a result of these injuries, the plaintiff has suffered and with reasonable certainty will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish. Upon medical examination, it was determined that the plaintiff suffered the following injuries: full-thickness skin loss or 3rd degree burns to approximately 40% of his body, fractures to his thoracic Spine (including a left burst fracture at T11 and spinous process fractures to T6 through T9), fracture to his left posterior 11?? rib, a displaced left 12?h rib, a comminuted fracture to the body of Ll with retroplusion, a large laceration to his head, numerous contusions/abrasions, and distress. 89 - 5 AT LAW CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 222. From all of the injuries of the effects thereof, the plaintiff was rendered sore and disabled and is suffering, and will continue to suffer from pain, discomfort, emotional upset, limitation of motion and restriction of activity. 223. The plaintiff's injuries, or some of them, will be permanent in nature and/or permanently disabling. 224. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff sustained significant and disfiguring scarring to his body, including his back, head, neck, left ear, hips, buttocks, legs, arms, hands, and feet. He also sustained scarring to both legs and his stomach, which were used for donor sites for skin grafting. 225. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was forced to incur expenses for medical care and attention, x-rays, pharmaceuticals, approximately 10 surgeries, and hospitalizations, to the plaintiff's further loss and damage and it is reasonably probable that the plaintiff's injuries, or some of them, will require future medical treatment and expenditures . 226. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was unable to work, he has lost money and earnings, he will lose earnings from employment in the future, and the plaintiff's future earning capacity will be impaired. 227. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff's ability to pursue and enjoy life's activities has been reduced. 90 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD. CONNECTECUT 06t03-19t9 (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251?5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 TWENTY-THIRD COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further 228. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/ or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to n0t train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper prewflight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 91 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034939 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251 -5099 JURES NO.57385 (1. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run~up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the B-17 scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its flight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; 1. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and apprOpriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the floor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the B-17G and make more money by putting them on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; 92 LO AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 2516000 FAX (860) 251-5099 SURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; m. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; n. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519; 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; s. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the 13?17 to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to and 93 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA . HARTFOHS. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 25t-50I30 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 t. IN THAT the defendant chose to impmperly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and twenty?one (221) through two hundred and (227) of the Twenty-Second Count and alleges further: 229. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. TWENTY-FOURTH COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. CCT OF 1979;. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 230. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; 94 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTECUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251 ?5099 JURIS NO.57385 b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable Operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper prewflight passenger brie?ng, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are prOperly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-17G prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the 8?17 to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the rnight crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre?flight safety briefing with the passengersLAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD. 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; in. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and takeoff and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; s. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; 96 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTECUT 06103?1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURES NO. 57385 t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and twenty?one (221) through two hundred and twenty?seven (227) of the Count. TWENTY-FIFTH COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. MR. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and fortyafive (145) and alleges further: 231. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, 97 L0 Fl 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA 06103-1939 (860) 251-5000 JURIS NO. 57385 acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre?flight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run-up prior to take off; IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; 98 - COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the B-17G to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 99 - a 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 061034919 - (860) est-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in Violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and w. TN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel Wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and twenty?one (221) through two hundred and twenty?seven (227) of the Twentvaecond CountLAW ONE CONSTETUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06303-1919 (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 25156099 - sot-?us NO. 57385 TWENTY-SIXTH COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. MR. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges . further: 232. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the'rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a prOper pre?flight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 101 LO AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251*5099 JURIS NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the ENS prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run-up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next flight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre?flight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing flight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the floor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the floor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91. 107; 102 - 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTECUT 06103-1919 - (860) 255-5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take- off and landing operations; m. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; n. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasteu that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; s. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to fly; and l03 LO AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. 06303?1 919 (860) 251-5000 FAX {880) 251-5099 JURES NO. 57385 t. IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel Wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in Violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and twenty?one (221) through two hundred and twenty-seven (227) of the Twenty?Second count. 233. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys? fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. TWENTY-SEVENTH COUNT (JENNY HUBER V. COLLINGS -- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM) Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs two hundred and twenty (220) through two hundred and twenty?seven (227) of the Twenty?Second Count and alleges further: 234. As a result of the defendant?s negligence and carelessness, the plaintiff, Jenny Huber, has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of love, society, affection, 104 - Lo 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA . HARTFORD, 06103-1919 - (850) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 companionship and consortium of her husband, Joseph Huber, to her further loss and damage. COUNT (JENNY HUBER V. CCT OF 1979 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM) Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145). Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraph two hundred and thirty (230) of the Count. Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and twenty?one (221) through two hundred and (227) of the Count. 235. As a result of the defendant?s negligence and carelessness, the plaintiff, Jenny Huber, has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of love, society, affection, companionship and consortium of her husband, Joseph Huber, to her further loss and damage. TWENTY-NINTH COUNT (JENNY HUBER V. MR. COLLINGS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM) Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145). 105 0 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1939 (860) 251-5000 FAX {860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraph two hundred and thirty?one (231) of the Twenty?Fifth Count. Plaintiff, Jenny Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and twenty?one (221) through two hundred and twenty?seven (227) of the Twenty-Second Count. 236 As a result of the defendant?s negligence and carelessness, the plaintiff, Jenny Huber, has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of love, society, affection, companionship and consortium of her husband, Joseph Huber, to her further loss and damage. THIRTIETH COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty~five (145) and alleges further: 237. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special 106 - t. a 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTSCUT 06103-1919 - (860) 253-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had suf?cient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper prew?ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run-up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre?flight safety briefing with the passengers; 107 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 251?5000 - JUFHS No.57385 k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and takeoff and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry 108 L0 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 05103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 238. door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. As a result of the Defendant?s conduct and resulting Crash, the plaintiff, sustained injuries of a severe and permanent nature and as a result of these injuries, the plaintiff has suffered and with reasonable certainty will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish. Upon medical examination, it was determined that the plaintiff suffered the following injuries: partial and full thickness burns to approximately 7% of his body, including his face, hands and lower back, and a comminuted impacted intra-articular left calcaneus (Le-wheel) fracture, numerous contusions/abrasions, and distress. 239. From all of the injuries of the effects thereof, the plaintiff was rendered sore and disabled and is suffering, and will continue to suffer from pain, discomfort, emotional upset, limitation of motion and restriction of activity. 109 - COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 NO. 57385 240. The plaintiff'sinjuries, or some of them, will be permanent in nature and/ or permanently disabling. 241. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff sustained significant and disfiguring scarring to his body, including his lower back, right hand, and face. He also sustained scarring to both of his legs used for donor sites for skin grafting and his left heel due to surgery performed on his left heel. 242. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was forced to incur expenses for medical care and attention, x?rays, pharmaceuticals, surgeries, and hospitalizations, to the plaintiff's further loss and damage and it is reasonably probable that the plaintiff's injuries, or some of them, will require future medical treatment and expenditures. 243. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was unable to work, he has lost money and earnings, he will lose earnings from employment in the future, and the plaintiff's future earning capacity will be impaired. 244. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff?s ability to pursue and enjoy life's activities hasrbeen reduced. THIRTY-FIRST COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 110 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - JURIS No.57385 245. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-17G prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run-up prior to take?off because the flight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next flight that day on the B-17 scheduled to depart at 9:30 IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pie-?ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; 111 - COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860)251-5099 NO.57385 g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its flight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the floor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?9l.107; 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; m. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 112 LO 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTIGN PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-4919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251*5099 JURIS 510.5738?) 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 5. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the B-17G to take off on October 2, 2019 deSpite knowing that it was not safe to fly; t. IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Thomas Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and thirty?eight (238) through two hundred and forty?four (244) of the Thirtieth Count and alleges further: 113 - 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, 051034919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - JURIS NO. 57385 246. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. THIRTY-SECOND COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. CCT OF 1979; NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 247. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefingLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 {860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JUHIS NO. 57385 importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-17G prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable prew?ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 115 LO 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JUHIS NO. 57385 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; I. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107, 14 CPR. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; s. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; 116 I, 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06t03?19t9 - (860) 251-5000 . FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 V. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Thomas Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and thirty-eight (238) through two hundred and forty?four (244) of the Thirtieth Count. THIRTY-THIRD COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. MR. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 248. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; 117 LO AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HAQTFOHD, BEDS-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 253?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run-up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traf?c Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-I7G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre?flight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 118 0 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251 -5099 JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91. 107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; 119 0 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 2516000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - SURIS NO. 57385 t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; V. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Thomas Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and thirty-eight (238) through two hundred and forty?four (244) of the Thirtieth Count. THIRTY-FOURTH COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. MR. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one 1) through one hundred and forty?five (I45) and alleges further: 249. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/ or reckless disregard of the rights and 120 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD. 06103-1919 - (880) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS No.57385 safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did net have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-?ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inSpecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-17G prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run-up prior to takemoff because the B-17G ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the B-17 scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre-flight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; 121 0 Ft 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORO, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 25t-5000 - FAX (860) 251?5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing flight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the floor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take- off and landing operations; rn. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number ll94~l and subsequent revisions; IL IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.358; 122 - 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06103-1919 - (860) 2516000 - FAX (850) 251-5099 r- JURIS NO. 57385 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for Opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 5. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to fly; and t. IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure. steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Thomas Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and thirty?eight (238) through two hundred and fortwaour (244) of the Thirtieth Count. 123 LO AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 051034919 (BSOI 2516000 FAX I860) 251-5099 JURES NO.57385 250. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. THIRTY-FIFTH COUNT (LINDA SCHMIDT V. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one 1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 251. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the 124 a 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - NO. 57385 importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; 6. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traf?c Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pro-flight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; I. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; in. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 125 - Lo 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 253-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the signi?cance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.1l7 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.362; 126 L, 0 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, 05103-1919 (860) 2516000 FAX (860) 25i-5099 dUFllS NO. 57385 v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 252. As a result of the defendant?s conduct and resulting Crash, the plaintiff, sustained injuries of a severe and permanent nature and as a result of these injuries, the plaintiff has suffered and with reasonable certainty will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish. Upon medical examination, it was determined that the plaintiff suffered the following injuries: partial and full thickness burns to approximately 11% of her body, including, her arms, face, posterior trunk, lower back, and buttocks, multiple leftwsided rib fractures involving the 5Eh through the 10?? ribs (some of which were displaced, the 7?h rib was fractured in two locations, and the 6?11 and 9?h ribs were comminuted fractures), multiple right?sided rib fractures involving the 6?h through the 9m ribs, large left-sided pneumothorax with associated laceration of the left lower lobe, extensive subcutaneous along the left chest wall into the neck and distally to the ?ank of the abdomen, pneumomediastinurn, small hemothorax on the right, left L3 and L5 transverse process fractures, sacral fracture on the left at S4, head laceration requiring staples, numerous contusions/ abrasions, and distress. 127 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - JURIS NO. 57385 253. From all of the injuries of the effects thereof, the plaintiff was rendered sore and disabled and is suffering, and will continue to suffer from pain, discomfort, emotional upset, limitation of motion and restriction of activity. 254. The plaintiffs injuries, or some of them, will be permanent in nature and/or permanently disabling. 255. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff sustained signi?cant and dis?guring scarring to her body, including her face, right ear, right arm and hand, lower back, left ankle, lower back, right hand, and face. She also sustained scarring to both legs and upper back used for donor sites for skin grafting and his chest due to surgery performed on her chest. 256. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was forced to incur expenses for medical care and attention, x?rays, pharmaceuticals, surgeries, and hospitalizations, to the plaintiff's further loss and damage and it is reasonably probable that the plaintiff?s injuries, or some of them, will require future medical treatment and expenditures. 257. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff?s ability to pursue and enjoy life's activities has been reduced. 128 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251 ?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 THIRTY-SIXTH COUNT (LINDA SCHMIDT V. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 258. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 129 counserons AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 08103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run-up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the B~l7 scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety brie?ng was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the B-17G was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the B-17G and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91. 107; 130 L0 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 - (860) 251-5000 FAX (860)2516099 - JUFHS NO. 57385 IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that eacli passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.; IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to and 131 - COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860)251?5000 JURIS NO.57385 t. IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel Wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Linda Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and fifty-two (252) through two hundred and fifty- seven (257) of the Thirty-?Fifth Count and alleges further: 259. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. THIRTY-SEVENTH COUNT (LINDA SCHMIDT V. CCT OF 1979; NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 260. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; 132 0 LO 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, {36103-3919 (860) 251~5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JUFlis NO. 57385 b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable Operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre?flight passenger brie?ng, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; 6. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre-?ight safety briefing with the passengers; 133 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTSUTION PLAZA . HARTFORD, CONNECHCUT 06103-1919 . (860) 2516000 - FAX (860} 251-5099 - .JUFHS NO. 57385 k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certi?cate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?l35.117 and the Final Exemption; 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation lof 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; 134 0 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTETUTION PLAZA HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be . provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b. 362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Linda Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and fifty?two (252) through two hundred and ?fty- seven (257) of the Thirty-Fifth Count. THIRTY-EIGHT COUNT (LINDA V. MR. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 261. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, 135 - a 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTRUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 08103-1919 - (860) 253-5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - NO. 57385 acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had suf?cient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre?flight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the Bml7G prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; 136 - counsELor-?is AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 NO. 57385 h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre-flight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; l. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the Bwl7G was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 137 - 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860)2516099 - JURIS r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G was briefed on how to fasten and nnfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 CPR. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 5. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the 13-176 to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to W. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Linda Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and fifty?two (252) through two hundred and fifty? seven (257) ?of the Thirty?Fifth Count. 138 8 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 25?-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 NO. 57385 THIRTY-NINTH COUNT (LINDA SCHMIDT V. MR. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 262. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/ or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 139 0 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION FLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 051034919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run-up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre?flight safety brie?ng with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the 8-176 was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the signi?cance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the B-17G and make more money by putting them on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?9l.107; 140 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860)251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 JUFIIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and taken off and landing operations; in. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; n. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 5. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to 141 - a 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 2515099 - JUFNS No.57385 t. THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in Violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Linda Schmit, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and fifty?two (252) through two hundred and ?fty- seven (257) of the Count and alleges further: 263. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. FOURTIETH COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, James Tra?cante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 264. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; 142 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251?5099 - JURIS No.57355 b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre?flight passenger brie?ng, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre-flight safety brie?ng with the passengers; 143 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTEON PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251 ?000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO, 57385 k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; I. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; in. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the B-17G was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; - 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 5. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; I44 - 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06303-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JUFHS NO. 57385 265. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the B-17G to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. As a result of the defendant?s conduct and resulting Crash, the plaintiff, sustained injuries of a severe and permanent nature and as a result of these injuries, the plaintiff has suffered and with reasonable certainty will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish. Upon medical examination, it was determined that the plaintiff suffered the following injuries: a comminuted proximal right humeral fracture involving the humeral neck with impaction and displacement, a ?rst degree burn to his forehead and cheek, and numerous contusions/abrasions, and distress. 266. From all of the injuries of the effects thereof, the plaintiff was rendered sore and disabled and is suffering, and will continue to suffer from pain, discomfort, emotional upset, limitation of motion and restriction of activity. 145 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 25i-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 267. The plaintiffs injuries, or some of them, will be permanent in nature and/ or permanently disabling. 268. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was forced to incur expenses for medical care and attention, x?rays, pharmaceuticals, surgery, and hospitalizations, to the plaintiff's further loss and damage and it is reasonably probable that the plaintiff's injuries, or some of them, will require future medical treatment and expenditures. 269. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was unable to work, he has lost money and earnings, he will lose earnings from employment in the future, and the plaintiff's future earning capacity will be impaired. 270. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff's ability to pursue and enjoy life's activities has been reduced. FORTY-FIRST COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 271. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 146 - 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTETUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 25?-5060 FAX (860} 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 a. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pie??ight passenger brie?ng, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run?up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually workedHARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - JURIS No.57385 i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the B-17 and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take- off and landing operations; in. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; IL IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G is briefed on how to fasten and nnfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers 148 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034 919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (850) 251?5099 JURIS NO.57385 would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to and IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and sixty?five (265) through two hundred and seventy (270) of the Fortieth Count and alleges further: 272. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. 149 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA 05103-1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS No.57385 COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. CCT OF 1979; NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (I) through one hundred and fortwaive (145) and alleges further: 273. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 3. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper prem?ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; 150 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3919 (860) 253-5000 FAX (850) 253?5099 JURIS NO.57385 e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the ?re earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre?flight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; In. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and 151 SHIPMANKVGOODWINLLP. 1. 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORS, CONNECTICUT 06103-3919 . {860) 251-5000 - 351-5099 - JURIS NO.57385 landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the EMU was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.1l7 and the Final Exemption; s. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation 01?14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. 152 . 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 2526099 - JURES Plaintiff, James Trafieante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and sixty-five (265) through two hundred and seventy (270) of the Fortieth Count. COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. MR. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 274. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA 153 0 L0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTEON HARTFORD, CONNECTECUT 08103-1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS 57385 regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-flight passenger brie?ng, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are preperly fastened and what to do in an emergency; (1. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the B-I7G and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable prew?ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; I. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; 111. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 154 - 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - NO. 57385 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the B-17G was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 11944 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that personfs safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; s. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; u. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.362; 155 - LO 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 08103-1919 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 251?5099 - JUFHS Nat-37385 V. IN THAT the defendant permitted the B-17G to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in Violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and sixty?five (265) through two hundred and seventy (270) of the Fortieth Count. COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. MR. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 275. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/ or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, and/ or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and 156 COUNSELORS AT LAW . ONE CONSTITUTEON PLAZA HARTFOHQ, CONNECTICUT 06103?19t9 - (860)251-5000 FAX {860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre-?ight passenger brie?ng, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run-up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the B-17 scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre-?ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 157 - 0 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX {860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91. 107; 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; n1. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; n. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; 158 t. 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06303-1919 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 3. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the 8-176 to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to t. TN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and sixty?five (265) through two hundred and seventy (270) of the Fortieth Count. 276. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. FORTY-FIFTH COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 159 a AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06103-1919 - (860) 2516000 - FAX (880) 251-5099 - duals NO. 57385 277. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant failed to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pie??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and What to do in an emergency; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the flight to safely land the B-17G and avoid the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traf?c Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the 160 - COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTETUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the rnight crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre??ight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; m. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder 161 - a 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-19t9 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 278. ?x 3 harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects Within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. As a result of the defendant?s conduct and resulting Crash, the plaintiff, sustained injuries of a severe and permanent nature and as a result of these injuries, the plaintiff has suffered and with reasonable certainty will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish. Upon medical examination, it was determined that the plaintiff suffered the 162 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTECUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO.57385 following injuries: traumatic head injury with multiple lacerations including a large laceration to his face, an injury to his left shoulder, numerous contusions/abrasions, and distress. 279. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff sustained significant and disfiguring scarring to his face. 280. From all of the injuries of the effects thereof, the plaintiff was rendered sore and disabled and is suffering, and will continue to suffer from pain, discomfort, emotional upset, limitation of motion and restriction of activity. 281. The plaintiff?s injuries, or some of them, will be permanent in nature and/or permanently disabling. 282. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was forced to incur expenses for medical care and attention, xmrays, pharmaceuticals, to the plaintiff's further loss and damage and it is reasonably probable that the plaintiff?s injuries, or some of them, will require future medical treatment and expenditures. 283. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff was unable to work and he lost money and earnings. 284. As a further result of the Crash, the plaintiff?s ability to pursue and enjoy life?s activities has been reduced. 163 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 ORTY-SIXTH COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-wfive (145) and alleges further: 285, The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Collings, acting through its agents, trustees, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: 21. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, its Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of its Special Airworthiness Certi?cate and the General Operating and Flight Rules; IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow its own SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre?flight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergency; 164 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 05303-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251 -5099 JURIS NO. 57385 d. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary run?up prior to takewoff because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable prew?ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before its flight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; i. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the floor in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107; 165 LO 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 081034919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; m. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train its Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train? its Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry" door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 3. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the to take off on October 2, 2019 despite knowing that it was not safe to fly; and 166 t. 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 - FAX (880) 251-5099 - JURIS No.57385 t. IN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and seventy?eight (278) through two hundred and eighty-four (284) of the Forty?Fifth Count and alleges further: 286. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. FORTY-SEVENTH COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. CCT OF 1979; NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 287. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, CCT of 1979, acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; 167 - 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTEON PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06103-1939 - (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 - JUHIS NO. 57385 b. IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do in an emergency; d. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run?up prior to take off; f. IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the and avoid the Crash; g. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to clear the to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre?flight safety briefing with the passengers; 168 LO 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 NO.57385 k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; I. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; in. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the B-17G was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take~off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the floor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G was briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.117 and the Final Exemption; 5. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 CPR. 91.519, 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; I69 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION - HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 2516099 - JURIS NO.57385 IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 413.362; IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to fly; and IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel Chocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and seventy-eight (278) through two hundred and eighty?four (284) of the Forty-Fifth Count. FORTY-EIGHTH COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. MR. NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further 288. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Mr. Collings, 170 COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS NO.57385 acting through its agents, servants, and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules, all of which compromised passenger safety; IN THAT the defendant failed to create a reasonable operating structure whereby Collings had sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; IN THAT the defendant failed to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of its personnel and instead failed to train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre?flight passenger briefing, the importance of inspecting all passenger seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and what to do inan emergency; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform appropriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the B-I7G prior to the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to perform a necessary run-up prior to take off; IN THAT the defendant failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps during the ?ight to safely land the B-17G and avoid the Crash; IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traffic Control to alert emergency personnel prior to the crash so that they could have been in positon to suppress the fire earlier than they otherwise were; 171 SHIPMANEIGOODWINLLP. couussLons AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 NO.57385 h. IN THAT the defendant failed to declare an emergency, which could have allowed Air Traf?c Control to Clear the B-17G to land on runway 33, which was closer than runway 6; i. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide the passengers of any warning that the B-17G might crash and to brace for the impact of the Crash; j. IN THAT the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable pre~flight safety briefing with the passengers; k. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; 1. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked and an adequate seat that would offer the Passengers protection in the event of a crash; rn. IN THAT the defendant never inspected the passengers to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; n. IN THAT the defendant failed to meet the mandatory requirement in the Exemption that it inform its passengers that the was operating under a Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate; 0. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take?off and landing operations and instead had the passengers sit on the ?oor in violation of 14 C.F.R. ?91.107; p. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194-1 and subsequent revisions; - q. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide all passengers with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 172 0 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 (860)251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS No.57385 r. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that each passenger on the was briefed on how to fasten and nnfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.107, 14 C.F.R. ?135.1l7 and the Final Exemption; s. IN THAT the defendant failed to ensure that all passengers had been orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; t. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings; 11. IN THAT the defendant failed to provide that all passenger areas shall be provided with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b. 362; v. IN THAT the defendant permitted the to take off on October 2, 2019, when it knew or should have known that it was not safe to and w. IN THAT the defendant failed to properly secure steel wheel shocks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and seventy-eight (278) through two hundred and eighty?four (284) of the Forty-Fifth Count. 173 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUYION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (880) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57'385 COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. MR. RECKLESSNESS) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 289. The Crash and the resulting injuries, damages, and losses sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the reckless misconduct and/or reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the Passengers by the defendant, Mr. Collings, acting through its agents, servants, arid/or employees, in one or more of the following ways: a. IN THAT the defendant chose to not follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System, the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption, the Limited Category Operating Limitations of Collings? Special Airworthiness Certificate and the General Operating and Flight Rules and instead focused on accumulating assets and increasing his own salary as Executive Director rather than on passenger safety; b. IN THAT the defendant chose to create an operating structure whereby Collings did not have sufficient oversight to enforce its own SMS Safety Rules and Flight Manual System; c. IN THAT the defendant chose not to follow Collings? SMS Safety Rules, Flight Manual System and the Conditions and Limitations of the Final Exemption with regards to appropriate training of Collings? personnel and instead chose to not train the Crew Chief on its Flight Manual System, FAA regulations, how to conduct a proper pre??ight passenger briefing, the importance of instructing all passengers on the use of seatbelts and inspecting those seatbelts to ensure they are properly fastened and instructing passengers on what to do in an emergencyLAW ONE PLAZA . HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 (1. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform apprOpriate, reasonable, and necessary maintenance, testing, and inspections of the prior to the Crash; e. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform a necessary runw-up prior to take?off because the ?ight was running late and there was another group of paying passengers waiting for the next ?ight that day on the 1347 scheduled to depart at 9:30 f. IN THAT the defendant chose not to perform reasonable pre~?ight safety briefing with the Passengers despite knowing that such safety briefing was critical to passenger safety in the event of an emergency; g. IN THAT the defendant chose not to take the extra time before the ?ight to provide any instruction to the passengers about how to properly use the seatbelts; h. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all ten passengers with a seatbelt that actually worked; 1. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inspect the Passengers? seatbelts prior to take off and landing to ensure their seatbelts were functioning and appropriately fastened; j. IN THAT the defendant chose not to inform the Passengers as required by the Final Exemption that the was operating under a Limited Category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of this Certificate, because Collings knew informing passengers would reduce the numbers of passengers that would actually pay Collings $450 for the short sightseeing ?ight; k. IN THAT the defendant chose to have the Passengers sit on the ?oor rather than use an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take-off and landing operations because the defendant knew it could fit more passengers into the and make more money by putting them on the ?oor in violation of 14 CPR. ?9l.107; 175 - 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) Est?5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 1. IN THAT the defendant chose to not provide all passengers with an approved seat with a seat belt fastened during ground movement and take? off and landing operations; m. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that met the structural requirements of CAR 4b and were installed using data provided in Aerodesign Report Number 1194?1 and subsequent revisions; 11. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide each passenger with a seat that protected them from head injuries by using a safety belt and shoulder harness which would prevent the head from contacting any injurious object or safety belt and elimination of all injurious objects within striking radius of the head in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.358; 0. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief, including training on how to ensure that each passenger on the B-17G is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person?s safety belt in violation of 14 CPR. ?91.107, 14 C.F.R. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; p. IN THAT the defendant chose to not train the Crew Chief (knowing that such training was necessary so that he could ensure that all passengers would be orally briefed on the location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits) in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.519; 14 CPR. 135.117 and the Final Exemption; q. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of a crash landing; r. IN THAT the defendant chose not to provide all passenger areas with emergency evacuation means to permit rapid egress in the event of crash landings including that emergency exits shall be unobstructed and shall be not less than 20 inches wide in violation of Civil Aeronautics Manual 4b.; 3. IN THAT the defendant chose to allow the B-17G to take off on October 2, 2019 deSpite knowing that it was not safe LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860} 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 t. TN THAT the defendant chose to improperly secure steel wheel checks and other cargo in the main fuselage allowing them to become projectiles in the crash in violation of 14 CFR 135.97. Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and seventy?eight (278) through two hundred and eighty?four (284) of the Fortwaifth Count and alleges further: 290. As a further result of the reckless misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff has incurred and will incur in the future attorneys? fees and costs for the preparation and prosecution of legal proceedings. FIFTIETH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. COLLINGS -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: 291. At the time of the Crash, Collings had insufficient insurance coverage to cover the catastrophic injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs. 292. Since the Crash, Collings has transferred assets to Collings, Inc, its af?liate and alter ego. 177 LO AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06303-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860)251-5099 JURIS NO.573BS 293. Less than two months after the Crash, by Quit Claim Deed dated November 29, 2019, Collings transferred 33 acres of real estate in Stow, Massachusetts to Collings, Inc. for ?no monetary consideration? (the ?Real Estate Transfer?). 294. Collings? Board of Trustees approved the Real Estate Transfer with at least one board member approving the transaction and signing the Quit Claim Deed in Middlesex County Connecticut. 295. Since the Crash, Collings has also transferred the ownership of at least six valuable aircraft to Collings, Inc. (the ?Aircraft Transfer?). 296. Upon information and belief, the Aircraft Transfer was done for nominal monetary consideration. 297. The Real Estate Transfer and the Aircraft Transfer (collectively the ?Property Transfers?) were fraudulent transfers pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52?552e in that Collings made them: a. after the Plaintiffs? claims arose; b. after Collings knew it was exposed to signi?cant liability in excess of its available insurance coverage; c. with either: the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud the Plaintiffs; or (ii) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Property Transfers and Ceilings believed or reasonably should have believed that it would incur obligations to the Plaintiffs beyond its ability to pay as they became due. 178 L0 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1939 (860) 251-5000 FAX (880) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 298. If not reversed and rescinded, the Property Transfers will cause the Plaintiffs injury and unjust less. 299. Collings made the Property Transfers to an insider its alter ego and affiliate Collings Inc., another private foundation that, among other things: a. shared common board membership in that at the time of the Property Transfers the Collings Board of Trustees and the Collings, Inc. Board of Directors were each made up of the same or substantially the same individuals b. shared common executive leadership in that at the time of the Property Transfers, Robert Collings was the Executive Director of Collings and the President of Collings, Inc.; c. shared the same principal place of business: 568 Main Street, Hudson, MA 01749 and telephone number; d. shared the Interactive Website which offers no readily ascertainable distinction between Collings and Collings, Inc; e. was dominated and controlled by Collings with respect to the Property Transfers such that Collings, Inc. had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; and f. shared such a unity of interest and control with Ceilings that the independence of the two had ceased to exist and adherence to their independent forms would only defeat justice. 300. Because the Property Transfers were fraudulent in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 552-552 et seq., the Plaintiffs have been injured. 179 - Lo 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251?5099 - NO. 57385 FIFTY-FIRST COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. COLLINGS -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. FIFTY-SECOND COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. COLLINGS -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. 180 0 i. AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JUHIS NO. 57385 FIFTY-THIRD COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. COLLINGS FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52_552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (14S) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety~one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. COLLINGS FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. 181 0 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 FIF TY-FIF TH COUNT (LINDA SCHMIDT V. COLLINGS FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52?552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. FIFTY-SIXTH COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. COLLINGS -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. 182 SHIPHANFIGOODWENLLP. 5 L0 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA . HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 - (860) 2516000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 FIFTY-SEVENTH COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. COLLINGS FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one 1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. FIFTY-EIGHTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52~552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert. G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. 183 LO AT LAW ONE CONSTETUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 2516099 JURIS NO. 57385 FIFTY-NINTH COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. SIXTIETH COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, PERSONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. 184 - 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 - {860) 251 -5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52?552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52~552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninetymone (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. 185 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (850) 251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 NO. 57385 SIXTY-THIRD COUNT (LINDA SCHMIDT V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth CountLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD. 06103-1919 (860)251?5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 JUHIS NO.57385 SIXTY-FIFTH COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. -- FRAUDULENT TRANSFER PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. ?52-552 et seq.) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty??ve (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count. SIXTY-SIXTH COUNT (DEBRA A. RIDDELL, ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ??42~110a gt Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: A Plaintiff, Debra A. Riddell, Administratrix for the Estate of Robert G. Riddell, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: 187 LO 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251?5000 - FAX (860)251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 301. Collings was only permitted to carry passengers on the for compensation or hire after it satisfied the FAA that it could do so safely. 302. In order to secure the Final Exemption and convince the FAA of its ability to operate the safely, Collings represented to the FAA that it would manage and operate its ?eet pursuant to its comprehensive Flight Manual System. 303. Collings represented that the Flight Manual System would set the standards for the operation, maintenance, training and safety of its passenger ?ight program. In particular, Collings represented and promised the FAA, among other things, that: 0Collings holds safety above all else, and that all foundation members have always held safety as the first priority and developed a culture around it. 0Collings is committed to maintaining the highest level of safety in its efforts to preserve historic aircraft and educate the public. 0 Collings personnel are provided with the awareness, training and tools to implement the SMS. 0 Collings sets the safety standards by ensuring that everyone knows the standards and accepts them. 0 Collings is committed to providing the highest level of safety attainable in all of its activities and most especially when dealing with customers and guests. All personnel will be held accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities under this safety management system. The SMS Safety Rules are under the direct control of the Executive Director, Robert Collings. 188 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 2535000 FAX (86(3) 251-5099 NO.57385 It would issue a cepy of the General Operations Manual to all ?ight crewmembers and maintenance personnel. 0 Its Director of Maintenance ensures that all inspection, repairs and component changes are accomplished in accordance with manufacturers or FAA approved procedures and ensures compliance with maintenance procedures, airworthiness directives, service bulletins, service letters, and applicable Federal Aviation Regulations. 0 Its Safety Officer trains ?ight crewmembers and maintenance personnel on the SMS Safety Rules and other safety related items. 0 Its Pilot in Command will assign a crewmember or passenger prior to departure to assist any person who may need the assistance of another person during a possible emergency evacuation of the aircraft. Its Pilot in Command will conduct or ensure that a trained crewmember conducts the briefing of all passengers as required by and in accordance with FAA exemption as amended prior to each take off. At least, the following items will be briefed: use of seat belts; (ii) location and means of opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits; location and operation of fire extinguishers; and (iv) that the has a limited category Special Airworthiness Certi?cate which means that the FAA has not established manufacturing standards for said category aircraft. In contrast, standard category airworthiness certificated aircraft are manufactured to FAA-approved standards, including standards addressing the design of aircraft and life?limited parts. 0 The Pilot in Command will brief any person who may need the assistance of another person to move expeditiously to an exit in an emergency regarding the location of the nearest emergency exit and the procedures to be followed so that the handicapped person is evacuated without delaying the evacuation of others on board the aircraft. 0 Only crewmembers trained and qualified in accordance with the applicable regulations will be assigned to conduct a ?ight. - Collings always focuses on safety firstLAW ONE CONSWTUTEON PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860)251-5000 JURIS NO.57385 All maintenance personnel will be properly trained in the policies and procedures required to perform their duties and scored knowledge tests will be administered covering subject material. 0 Prior to participating in LHFE duties, each Collings employee shall undergo indoctrination training regarding; FAA rules and regulations; (ii) Collings policies and organization; Collings Maintenance, Operations and SMS Safety manuals; (iv) technical manuals; and safety and fire control. 0 It would follow the procedures for maintenance, preventive maintenance, servicing and inspections found in its aircraft maintenance manuals. 304. Relying on Collings? representations and promises, the FAA granted the Final Exemption. 305. Not having the resources to monitor and inspect Collings? ?ight operations on a regular ongoing basis, Collings knew that the FAA relied on Collings to fulfill its representations and promises. 306. To a certain degree, the FAA managed the Final Exemption pursuant to an ?honor system? whereby Collings was expected to manage its ?ight operations in accordance with the promises and representations it made in its petition for the Final Exemption. Collings did not do this. 307. Instead, Collings charged passengers $450 to take a short sightseeing trip on a 76-year-old without ?focusing on safety ?rst?. 308. Collings ignored its promises and representations to the FAA by, among other things: 190 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251<5000 FAX (860) 251?5099 JURIS NO. 57385 0 Failing to train its Crew Chief properly as required under the Final Exemption and the Flight Manual System. Indeed the Crew Chief received no formal training from Collings including no scored testing on maintenance policies and procedures and no indoctrination training on FAA policies and regulations, the Flight Manual System or safety and fire control. Creating a management structure that did not allow for adequate oversight of the Pilot in Command. Instead, it created a con?ict of interest his roles as Pilot in Command of the and as Director of Maintenance for the Tour. Failing to perform its inspection, maintenance and repair of the in accordance with the Flight Manual System. A post-Crash inspection of engines No. 3 and No. 4 confirmed that Collings did not properly maintain these engines and repaired them in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. - Failing to carry out an essential yet basic and straight forward passenger safety briefing before takeoff. 0 Failing to inform the Passengers prior to takeoff about the limited category Special Airworthiness Certificate and the significance of that certificate in comparison to a standard category airworthiness certi?cate. 309. Collings built an environment of short cuts and safety compromises while at the same time telling its federal regulator and its customers, repeatedly, that ?Collings is committed to providing the highest level of safety attainable in all of its activities and most especially when dealing with customers and guests.? 310. In the promotion of the Tour on its interactive website, Collings told its customers that its aircraft are ?maintained to the highest standards? and that its ?aircraft safety [is] second to noneLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061 03-1919 . (880) 2516000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS No.57385 311. Collings? battle cry of ?safety ?rst? was not mere puffing. It was a systematic tale of deception that was essential to Collings? ability to secure the Final Exemption and to induce customers to pay $450 for a ?ight on a 76?year-old warplane. 312. Collings? failure to inform the Passengers of the limited category Special Airworthiness Certificate and its signi?cance was also intentional and deceptive and prevented the Passengers from fully understanding the risk associated with ?ying on the B- 313. October 2, 2019, Collings carried the Passengers on board the for compensation or hire and, therefore, was conducting ?trade or commerce? in Connecticut as that term is defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. ?42-110a (4). 314. As a direct and proximate result of Collings? conduct as described herein, the Plaintiffs have suffered ascertainable loss within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. 42? 110g(a) in an amount to be determined at trial. 315. Collings? conduct described herein is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; offensive to public policy; and/or caused substantial injury to the Plaintiffs as consurners. 316. Based on the foregoing, Collings? conduct constitutes unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 42? llOb. 192 0 8 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061031919 FAX (850) 251?5099 JURIS ND. 57385 317. Collings? has engaged in the conduct described herein willfully, wantonly and recklessly and it demonstrates calculated, deceitful and unfair conduct with reckless indifference to the safety and wellbeing of the Passengers. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages pursuant to Conn Gen. Stat. 42-110g 318. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. upon commencement of this action, the Plaintiffs submitted a copy of this Complaint to the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut and the Commissioner of Consumer Protection. SIXTY-SEVENTH COUNT (CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ??42~110a gt gq.) Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: Plaintiff, Craig A. Rubner and Scott Rubner, Co?Executors of the Estate of Robert S. Rubner, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in 193 t. 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 - 251-5099 - JURES No.57385 paragraphs three hundred and one (301) through three hundred and eighteen (318) of the Sixty-?Sixth Count. SIXTY-EIGHTH COUNT (JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ??42~1103 e_t Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph M. Roberts, Administrator for the Estate of James M. Roberts, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs three hundred and one (301) through three hundred and eighteen (318) of the Sixtthixth CountLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 NO. 57385 SIXTY-NINTH COUNT (JOSEPH HUBER V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ??42~110a g; egg.) Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: Plaintiff, Joseph Huber, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs three hundred and one (301) through three hundred and eighteen (318) of the Count. SEVENTIEETH COUNT (THOMAS SCHMIDT V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ??42~1103 gt seg.) Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one 1) through one hundred and (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: 195 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103?1919 - (860) 251-5000 FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 Plaintiff, Thomas Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs three hundred and one (301) through three hundred and eighteen (318) of the Sixty-Sixth Count. COUNT (LINDA SCHMIDT V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. (Gen. Stat. ??4241103 gt Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty-five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety?one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: Plaintiff, Linda Schmidt, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs three hundred and one (301) through three hundred and eighteen (318) of the Sixty~Sixth Count. SEVENTY-SECOND COUNT (JAMES TRAFICANTE V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ??42-1103 e_t gag.) Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: 196 - 3 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860)251-5099 - JURIS Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninety-one (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: Plaintiff, James Traficante, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs three hundred and one (301) through three hundred and eighteen (318) of the Sixty-Sixth Count. COUNT (ANDREW BARRETT V. Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. ??42~110a e_t sgg.) Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs one (1) through one hundred and forty?five (145) and alleges further: Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs two hundred and ninetywone (291) through three hundred (300) of the Fiftieth Count and alleges further: Plaintiff, Andrew Barrett, realleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth above in paragraphs three hundred and one (301) through three hundred and eighteen (318) of the Sixty?Sixth Count. 197 t. 5 AT LAW ONE PLAZA - HARTFORD, 06103?1919 - (850) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JURIS NO. 57385 WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM: A. B. G. Dated in Hartford, Connecticut, this 4th day of June, MONETARY PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FEES AND COSTS OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CUTPA, CONN. GEN. STAT. 42?110g; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INCLUDING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER DISPOSITION OF DISCOVERY INTO ALL OF COLLINGS AND COLLINGS, INC. ?8 AN ORDER THAT THE PROPERTY TRANSFE RE VOID AND AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THE CIRCUMSTA ES EQUIRE. M11 J. Ronalter, Esq. Mark . Ostrowski, Esq. James W. Bergenn, Esq. Juris No. 057385 Shipman Goodwin, LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 2516100 (860) 251~5216 Fax wronalter@goodwin. com mostrowski?lgoodwincom jbergenn@goodwin.com Their Attorneys 198 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 (850)251?5000 FAX (860) 2536099 JURIS NO.57385 RETURN DATE: JULY 7, 2020 SUPERIOR COURT DEBRA A. RIDDELL, J.D. OF HARTFORD ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT G. RIDDELL, DEBRA A. RIDDELL, INDIVIDUALLY, CRAIG A. RUBNER AND SCOTT RUBNER, OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT S. RUBNER, JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. ROBERTS, JOSEPH HUBER, JENNY HUBER, THOMAS SCHMIDT, LINDA SCHMIDT, JAMES TRAFICANTE, AND ANDREW BARRETT V. AT HARTFORD THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, THE JUNE 4, 2020 COLLINGS FOUNDATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES, ROBERT F. COLLINGS, JR., DONALD RISING, WILLIAM BOLLER, FRANK DWORAK GARY LEWI, THE CCT OF 1979 SERIES LLC CCT OF 1979 SERIES LLC B-17 SERIES, ROBERT F. COLLINGS, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, AND THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION, INC. 199 - 5 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 061034919 - (860) 251-5000 - FAX (860) 251-5099 - JUHIS NO. 57385 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMANE The amount in demand is more than $15,000.00, excl iv of interest and costs. I J. Ikonalter, Esq. Ma K. Ostrowski, Esq. James W. Bergenn, Esq. Juris No. 057385 Shipman Goodwin, LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 251-5100 (860) 251?5216 Fax wronalter@goodwin.com mostrowski@goodwin.com jbergenn@goodwin.com Their Attorneys 200 3 L0 3 AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HAHTFORS, CONNECTICUT 05103-1919 (860) 251?5000 FAX (850) 251-5099 JURIS NO. 57385 EXHIBIT A PROBATE A b- - STATE OF CONNECTICUT 7 CERTIFICATE If" 90-450 REV. 7/15 - 1 COURT OF PROBATE COURT OF PROBATE TobaccO Valley Probate Court ESTATE OFIIN THE MATTER OF Robert G. Ridden; AKA Robert Ridden (19?053 2) DISTRICT NO. P1303 I DATE OF CERTIFICATE A December 4, 2019 . - DATE OF FDDUCLARY NAME AND ADDRESS POSITION OF TRUST APPOINTMENT Debra A. RIddell, 103 Hatchet H111 Road, East Granby, A dministr ahj'x December 4? 2019 CT 06026 he undersigned hereby certi?es that the ?duciary in the above?named matter has accepted appointment, isllegally authorized and quali?ed to act as such ?duciary because the appointment is unrevoked and in full force as of the above date ofcertt?cate. This certi?cate is valid for one year from the date of the certi?cate. Other limitation, If any, on the above certI?Cote: 1N TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and af?xed the seal of this Court on the above date of certt?cate. Amt/7 Sharon 155qu Assistant Clerk 4 NOT VALID WITHOUT COURT OF PROBATE SEAL IMPRESSED PROBATE CERTIFICATE P0450 EXHIBIT PROBATE STATE OF CONNECTICUT CERTIFICATE PC-450 REV. 7/15 COURT OF PROBATE COURT OF PROBATE, Tolland - Mans?eld Probate Court DISTRICT NO. PDZS ESTATE OWN THE MATTER OF . DATE CERTIFICATE Robert s. Rubner (191-00351) Janum13,2020 - 1. DATE OF FIDUCLARY NAME AND ADDRESS FIDUCIARY 8 POSITION OF TRUST APPOINTMENT Cralg A. Runner, 193 Call H1113 Road, Dresden, ME (Io?Executor 1 November 20, 2019 043 42 . 1 Scott Rubner, 19 Rooket Run, En?eld, CT 06082 Co-Executor November 20, 2019 The undersigned hereby certifies that the ?duciary in the above?named matter has accepted appointment, is legally authorized and quali?ed to act as such ?duciary because the appointment is unrevoked and in full force as of the above date of certi?cate. This certi?cate is valid for one year from the date of the certi?cate. Other limitation, if any, on the above certi?cate: 1N TESTIMONY WREOF: Ihave hereunto set my hand and af?xed the seal of this Court on the above date of certi?cate. Patrice Maycock-Lusa, Assistant Clerk 1 :31 NOT {inLTo WITHOUT COURT OF TROBATE SEAL IMPRESSED PROBATE CERTIFICATE P0450 . 1 . EXHIBIT PROBATE STATE OF CONNECTICUT CERTIFICATE P0450 REV. 7/15 COURT OF PROBATE COURT OF PROBATE, Probate Court DISTRICT 0. 1)ng ESTATE THE MATTER OF DATE OF CERTIFICATE James M. Roberts (20-00241) ?me 4= 2020 NAME AND ADDRESS POSITION OF TRUST DATE OF APPOINTMENT Joseph M. Roberts, 61 Wylie School Road, VoluntownAdministrator May 2 i, 2020 The undersigned hereby certi?es that the ?duciary in the above-named matter basiaccepted appointment, is legally authorized and qualified to act as such?duciaiy because the appointment is unrevoked and in fail force as of the above date of certificate. This certi?cate is valid for one year from the date of the certi?cate. Other limitation, if any, on the above certificate: IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and af?xed the seal of this Court on the above date of certi?cate. but Darlene LYAyrton, Clerk, VALID WITHOUT COURT OF PROBATE SEAL IMPRESSED PROBATE CERTIFICATE 130-450