HARRISBURG – Next month, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania will consider the latest dispute among parties involved in a helicopter crash injury lawsuit, as it pertains to the proper venue of the action and whether that should be in Philadelphia County or Bucks County.
Theodore Troseth and Cheryl Troseth of Mesa, Ariz. initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on March 18, 2021 versus Carson Helicopters Holding Co., Inc. and Carson Helicopters, Inc. of Perkasie, and Heligroup Fire, LLC of Missoula, Mont.
“On April 20, 2020, Theodore Troseth was a passenger in a Sikorsky S-61N helicopter at Camp Dwyer, Helmand Province, Afghanistan, when one of the main rotor blades separated causing the aircraft to crash. As a result of the violent striking to the ground, Theodore Troseth suffered multiple life-threatening injuries including but not limited to multiple fractures of his lumbar spine, multiple fractures of his left leg, multiple fractures of his ribs, fractures of his sternum and a cardiac contusion, together with injuries and damages to his nerves and nervous system, any and all of which are permanent, and all of which have caused him great pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement and PTSD, all which have caused him to be disabled from working, caused loss of earnings and earning capacity, all of which are permanent,” the suit said.
“As a further result of the injuries suffered by her husband, Cheryl Troseth, has and will be deprived of her husband’s services, support, society, companionship, and consortium, as well as his support, any and all of which will be permanent. The accident investigation was undertaken by United States-based authorities including but not limited to, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration who enlisted the Carson defendants to assist in the investigation including the removal and shipment of the main rotor blades to the United States for examination and testing in Pennsylvania.”
The suit added that the defendants operated, maintained, built, overhauled, modified, troubleshot and was responsible for keeping the helicopter in an airworthy condition further to the regulations under which it was owned and operated, both in the United States and Afghanistan.
“In the period after which the Carson defendants obtained FAA approval for installation of composite rotor blades for the S-61, there arose instances of delaminations, failures or incipient failures of the composite main rotor blades requiring daily inspections of the blades. Heligroup and/or Carson knew of these instances of blade failure and its performance history, but did not correct them, adequately warn or issue service instructions to prevent against the dangers of a blade failure or incipient failure. CHI performed the required inspections of the rotor blades on the accident helicopter by trained, qualified and FAA licensed mechanics, who found nothing that would suggest an imminent rotor blade failure,” the suit stated.
“There were ample alternative designs and protocols to make the helicopter and its rotor blades safe for flight without unreasonable increase in costs or requiring design, construction, inspection and maintenance beyond state of the art including, but not limited to, non-destructive testing (NDT) of the blades. On the day of the accident, the helicopter was flown by professionally-trained, qualified, experienced and FAA licensed pilots who were approaching the airfield at Camp Dwyer when suddenly one of the main rotor blades separated causing the helicopter to roll and crash, which resulted in the severe injuries suffered by plaintiff Theodore Troseth.”
In July 2021, the defendants filed separate preliminary objections to the complaint, specifically to venue – where they requested a transfer of the case to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas.
In particular, the Carson defendants asserted that “(1) No defendant had a registered office or principal place of business located in Philadelphia, (2) No defendant regularly conducts business in Philadelphia, (3) The cause of action did not arise in Philadelphia, (4) The occurrence took place outside of Philadelphia and the subject helicopter was never repaired, maintained or inspected in Philadelphia, and (5) This is not an equity action and involves no property.”
However, a trial court judge overruled these objections on Dec. 5, 2021 (supplementing this order on Jan. 13, 2022) and kept the case in Philadelphia, leading defendant Heligroup to then appeal that ruling to the Superior Court.
But a three-judge complement of the Superior Court, on March 13, 2023, remanded the case to the trial court, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
“Appellants Carson Helicopters, Inc., Carson Helicopters Holdings Co., Inc. and Heligroup Fire, LLC., have taken this appeal from the trial court’s Jan. 13, 2022 order overruling appellants’ preliminary objections to venue. Although the trial court authored a Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) opinion purporting to explain the basis for its decision, it is not clear to this Court upon which facts the trial court relied in concluding that venue in Philadelphia County is proper. We are, thus, unable to conduct an appropriate review to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in overruling appellants’ preliminary objections,” the Superior Court’s order said.
“Accordingly, on this 13th day of March, 2023, we strike this case from the argument list and remand to the trial court to file a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion within 30 days of this order. We direct the trial court in its opinion to detail the facts upon which it based its order overruling appellants’ preliminary objections to venue with reference to and discussion of applicable law. Appellants may file a supplemental brief no later than 14 days after the trial court files its supplemental opinion. Appellees may file a supplemental brief no later than 14 days after appellants file their supplemental brief. This panel will then decide the appeal on the submitted briefs and supplemental briefs unless appellants request oral argument.”
After several continuances, the matter is due to once again come before the Superior Court on Feb. 6.
For multiple counts of strict liability in tort, negligence, additional strict liability, breach of implied and express warranties, breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Alan Wolk, Cynthia M. Devers and Michael M. Miska of The Wolk Law Firm, in Philadelphia and Bala Cynwyd.
The defendants are represented by J. Denny Shupe, Robert J. Williams and Lee C. Schmeer of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, plus J. Bruce McKissock, Michele P. Frisbie and Carol Ann VanderWoude of Marshall Dennehey, in King of Prussia, Doylestown and Philadelphia.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania cases 249 EDA 2022 & 250 EDA 2022
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 210301222
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com