Quantcast

Pilot complaining of 'wet sock' smell, carbon monoxide exposure moves for default judgment

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Pilot complaining of 'wet sock' smell, carbon monoxide exposure moves for default judgment

Federal Court
Airplane29

PHILADELPHIA – A pilot who sued the California airline he worked for, one he alleged subjected him to negligent, prolonged carbon monoxide exposure in the planes he was flying, is moving for a default judgment for failure to respond to his reinstated complaint.

Jeremy Ravotti of Leechburg first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 28, 2018 versus OneJet, Inc. of Larkspur, Calif.

The suit concerns the airplanes’ allegedly defective “bleed air” system, one that regulates the air entering the cabin and cockpit after making contact with the plane’s engines. It can become contaminated with heated jet engine oil and toxic byproducts, increase the temperature throughout the airplane and produce fumes having a “dirty” or “wet sock” smell.

Ravotti was hired by Contour Flight Management as a pilot in January 2016 and began flying OneJet aircrafts in August of that year. In November 2016, the N102NS aircraft suffered from multiple maintenance issues, such as the inability to regulate temperature in the cabin and cockpit and that same smell throughout the aircraft, the suit said.

“As it would later turn out, the temperature issues and odors within the aircraft were caused by problems with, and defects in, their aircraft’s air system, including the engine seal that is used to separate exhaust from the air and air that is pumped in from the atmosphere,” the suit stated.

In January 2017, Ravotti said he was flying the plane from Milwaukee to Pittsburgh and encountered the aforementioned problems. After taking measures to try to control the temperature, Ravotti donned an oxygen mask and goggles – which he said was the last thing he remembered until he woke up in a room at Heritage Valley Hospital in Sewickley, the suit said.

“As it turns out, plaintiff became incoherent, incapacitated and subsequently passed out while attempting to control the temperature in the N102NS aircraft as a result of carbon monoxide and/or organophosphates being present in the cockpit,” the suit stated.

“Plaintiff’s second in command was able to land the aircraft in Pittsburgh and both he and plaintiff were taken to Heritage Valley Hospital where plaintiff was treated for syncope due to carbon monoxide exposure. Subsequent to his discharge from Heritage Valley Hospital, plaintiff went to various physicians (including specialists) and hospitals in January and February 2017 for symptoms that included gray complexion, blue dye being omitted from his pores, head pain, burning sensations, shortness of breath, dizziness and nausea.”

After two months away, Ravotti returned to work but said he suffered continued and recurring symptoms (which needed further medical treatment), since the planes had allegedly not been repaired for the injurious technical issues mentioned in the lawsuit.

On Jan. 23, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Mark R. Hornak ordered the action stayed, due to the aforementioned bankruptcy action currently being resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

However, Judge Gregory L. Taddonio entered an order terminating the automatic stay on Nov. 18, thus leading Ravotti to pursue the current reinstatement of the litigation. On March 2, Hornak granted the motion lifting the stay on Ravotti’s litigation against OneJet, thus reinstating it.

After OneJet or its insurance carriers failed to respond to the reinstated complaint by the scheduled date of April 30, Ravotti followed up with a filed motion for default judgment on May 27.

“To plaintiff counsel’s knowledge, there is no good cause for defendant’s failure to plead. Accordingly, plaintiff respectfully requests that a default judgment be entered against defendant. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court set a jury trial and/or hearing(s) for the determination of all damages, fees, costs and other relief requested in plaintiff’s complaint or otherwise available,” the motion read, in part.

For negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000, plus interest, cost of suit, punitive damages and any other damages deemed proper by the Court, in addition to a trial by jury.

The plaintiff is represented by Michael A. O’Leary of The Archinaco Firm, in Pittsburgh.

The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel, according to the case docket.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-01598

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News