PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has denied a request for entry of default judgment from a pilot who worked for a California airline and allegedly suffered sustained negligent and prolonged carbon monoxide exposure in the planes he was flying.
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.
After a bankruptcy action caused a 13+ month-long stay of the case, the stay was lifted last March and Ravotti sought a default judgment due to no response coming in by April 30.
The airline denied the entirety of Ravotti’s claims on June 25 while asserting 29 separate affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted and pre-emption by the Federal Aviation Act.
UPDATE
On Dec. 4, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge W. Scott Hardy denied Ravotti’s request for entry of default judgment, feeling the case did not pass muster for the considered factors of “(1) Prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied; (2) Whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense and; (3) Whether defendant’s delay is due to culpable conduct.”
“Upon consideration of these factors in the context of the present case, the Court finds, first, that plaintiff has failed to show that he would be prejudiced if his motion for entry of default is denied,” Hardy said.
“Although plaintiff alleges that he has been prejudiced by spoliation of evidence, the Court notes that this argument appears to be based on one of defendant’s insurers denying plaintiff coverage for his claim for a number of reasons – including the sale of, or failure to preserve for inspection, the aircraft at issue in the claim.”
As to the second factor to be considered, the Court found the defendant has asserted litigable defenses to plaintiff’s negligence claim, in its questions for validity of service of the complaint and affirmative defenses.
“Finally, there is a lack of evidence of record to suggest that defendant’s delay in filing an answer was due to culpable conduct, which is defined by the Third Circuit as ‘willfulness’ or ‘bad faith’, and which does not include mere negligence,” Hardy said.
“Review of the record shows that defendant was involved in involuntary bankruptcy proceedings at the time this action was filed, this action was subject to the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. Section 362, the stay was later lifted, and – soon after plaintiff’s motion for default judgment was filed – defendant did in fact file an answer and respond to the motion for default in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.”
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 and Jason A. Archinaco of The Archinaco Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Clem C. Trischler of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, also in Pittsburgh.
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