Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 1 of 36 PageID #:176
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`ARIS SISWANTO, Personal Representative of
`the Heirs of MRS. SUSIYAH, deceased,
`HADI WIDJAJA, Personal Representative of
`the Heirs of ANDREAS WIDJAJA, deceased,
`HENNY SANTOSA, Personal Representative of
`the Heirs of DJOKO SATRYO TANOE
`WIDJAJA, deceased, ONG SIUE HWA, Personal
`Representative of the Heirs of STEPHANIE
`YULIANTO, deceased, TRISNOWATI HALIM,
`Personal Representative of the Heirs of
`PRAWIRA HARJA SUBAGIO, deceased,
`TJOKRO HERWANTO TEDDY, Personal
`Representative of the Heirs of DJAROT
`BIANTORO, deceased, MRS ERNAWATI,
`deceased, and KEVIN BIANTORO, deceased,
`MEI-YI WEE, Personal Representative of the
`Heirs of CHI MAN CHOI, deceased, and ZOE
`MAN SUEN CHOI, deceased, HARI SANTOSA
`ANG, Personal Representative of the heirs of
`BUNDI SU, deceased, HARI SANTOSA ANG
`and HUSIN HARSONO, Co-Personal
`Representatives of the heirs of MRS YENNI,
`deceased, STEVEN MICHAEL ANG, deceased,
`and SHARON MICHELLE ANG, deceased,
`SINDU MULYONO, Personal Representative of
`the heirs of EKO WIJAYA, deceased,
`SUSANDHINI LIMAN, deceased, MARILYN
`WIJAYA, deceased, ALFRED WIJAYA,
`deceased, and WILLIAM WIJAYA, deceased,
`FELLY PURNOMO, Personal Representative of
`the heirs of FERNY YUFINA PURNOMO,
`deceased, and CHRISTIEN AULIA PURNOMO,
`deceased
`
`
`
`
`
`AIRBUS, S.A.S., a corporation, DORIC
`CORORATION, a corporation, HONEYWELL,
`INTERNATIONAL, a corporation, THALES
`AVIONICS,S.A.S., a corporation, MOTOROLA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 15-cv-5486
`
`Hon. John Robert Blakey
`
`)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 2 of 36 PageID #:177
`
`)))))
`
`INC., a corporation, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
`CORPORATION, a corporation, and
`GOODRICH CORP., a corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Aris Siswanto, Personal Representative of the heirs of Mrs. Susiyah, deceased,
`
`Hadi Widjaja, Personal Representative of the heirs of Andreas Widjaja, deceased, Henny Santosa,
`
`Personal Representative of the heirs of Djoko Satryo Tanoe, deceased, Ong Siue Hwa, Personal
`
`Representative of the heirs of Stephanie Yulianto, deceased, Trisnowati Halim, Personal
`
`Representative of the heirs of Prawira Harja Subiago, deceased, Tjokro Herwanto Teddy, Personal
`
`Representative of the heirs of Djarot Biantoro, deceased, Mrs. Ernawati, deceased, and Kevin
`
`Biantoro, deceased, Mei-Yi Wee, Personal Representative of the Heirs of Chi Man Choi, deceased,
`
`and Zoe Man Suen Choi, deceased, Hari Santosa Ang, Personal Representative of the heirs of
`
`Bundi Su, deceased, Hari Santosa Ang and Husin Harsono, Co-Personal Representatives of the
`
`heirs of Mrs. Yenni, deceased, Steven Michael Ang, deceased, and Sharon Michelle Ang,
`
`deceased, Sindu Mulyono, Personal Representative of the heirs of Eko Wijaya, deceased,
`
`Susandhini Liman, deceased, Marilyn Wijaya, deceased, Alfred Wijaya, deceased, and William
`
`Wijaya, deceased, and Felly Purnomo, Personal Representative of the heirs of Ferny Yufina
`
`Purnomo, deceased, and Christian Aulia Purnomo, deceased, by their attorneys, Wisner Law Firm,
`
`P.C., for their second amended complaint against defendants Airbus, S.A.S., a corporation, Doric
`
`Corporation, a corporation, Honeywell International, a corporation, Thales Avionics, S.A.S., a
`
`corporation, Motorola, Inc., a corporation, Goodrich Corp., a corporation, and United
`
`Technologies Corporation, a corporation, state as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 3 of 36 PageID #:178
`
`COUNT I
`
`1. Plaintiffs are citizens of countries other than the United States. Plaintiffs are the heirs,
`
`and personal representatives, of their respective decedents. Plaintiffs’ decedents were citizens of
`
`countries other than the United States.
`
`2. Defendants Airbus, S.A.S. and Thales Avionics, S.A.S. are, upon information and
`
`belief, corporations incorporated in, and having their principal places of business in, France. All
`
`other defendants are, upon information and belief, corporations incorporated in and having their
`
`principal places of business in, the United States. All defendants do business in Illinois sufficient
`
`to subject them to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State.
`
`3. This action arises from the crash of Air Asia Flight 8501 in which more than 75 persons
`
`died at the sag26me location. Therefore, this action is governed by the Multi-Forum Multi-
`
`Jurisdiction Act, 28 U.S.C. §1369, and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`4. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1391 as all defendants do business in
`
`this District.
`
`5. On a date prior to December 28, 2014, defendant Airbus, S.A.S. (“Airbus”) designed,
`
`manufactured, assembled, and sold a certain Airbus 320-200 aircraft, Registration PX-AXC (“the
`
`accident aircraft”).
`
`6. At the time the accident aircraft left the control of defendant Airbus, it was defectively
`
`and unreasonably dangerous in one or more of the following respects:
`
`(a) the accident aircraft’s radar did not provide complete and accurate weather information;
`(b) the accident aircraft’s pitot tubes and angle of attack sensors were subject to becoming
`blocked or obstructed and providing erroneous information, including information as to
`the accident aircraft’s air speed, to the air data inertial reference units (“ADIRU”) and
`flight control computers (“FCC”);
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 4 of 36 PageID #:179
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`(c) the accident aircraft’s ice detection system failed to detect and warn of accumulation of
`ice in certain parts of the aircraft;
`the accident aircraft’s rudder trim limiter was subject to failure, causing an
`uncommanded pitch of the accident aircraft, and one of the accident aircraft’s rudder
`trim limiter had failed prior to the subject crash;
`the accident aircraft’s angle of attack sensors were subject to failure in flight and an
`Airworthiness Directive regarding this problem was issued by the U.S. Federal Aviation
`Authority (FAA) and the defendant Airbus issued a revised protocol for responding to
`a failure in flight of the angle of attack sensors shortly prior to the subject crash;
`the accident aircraft’s angle of attack sensors provided erroneous information to the
`ADIRU’s and FCC’s;
`the accident aircraft’s ADIRU’s provided erroneous data and spurious signals, including
`erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the aircraft’s angle of attack, to the
`FCC’s;
`the accident aircraft’s ADIRU’s failed to filter out erroneous data and spurious signals,
`including erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the accident aircraft’s angle
`of attack;
`the accident aircraft’s FCC’s failed to filter out erroneous data and spurious signals,
`including erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the accident aircraft’s angle
`of attack;
`the accident aircraft’s FCC’s commanded dangerous and unauthorized flight control
`movements;
`the accident aircraft’s FCC’s authorized uncommanded and dangerous flight control
`movements;
`the accident aircraft did not have adequate protection of its ADIRUs, FCC’s and other
`components from electromagnetic interference;
`(m) the accident aircraft’s side stick controls provided erroneous information to the FCC’s;
`it was difficult to recover the accident aircraft from an unusual flight attitude; and
`(n)
`(o)
`the accident aircraft’s Flight Augmentation Computers (FAC’s) were subject to failure,
`and one of the accident aircraft’s FAC’s had failed and been replaced prior to the subject
`crash; when the FAC’s failed, the autopilot would become inoperative and the rudder
`limiter system, including the rudder and yaw damper, would fail, resulting in a loss of
`control.
`7. On December 28, 2014, the accident aircraft was being operated by Air Asia as Flight
`
`No. 8501 from Surabaya, Indonesia to Singapore.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 5 of 36 PageID #:180
`
`8. On said date, plaintiffs’ decedents were fare paying passengers onboard the accident
`
`aircraft on the subject flight.
`
`9. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the above-described defects in the
`
`accident aircraft, the accident aircraft was caused to go into a steep high speed climb, followed by
`
`a high altitude stall; the two Flight Augmentation Computers both failed, resulting in a loss of the
`
`autopilot and a failure of the rudder limiter system and a loss of rudder and yaw control; the flight
`
`crew could not regain control of the accident aircraft and the aircraft crashed into the Java Sea,
`
`killing all those onboard, including plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`10. Plaintiffs’ decedents left surviving heirs and next of kin, including plaintiffs, for whose
`
`benefit this action is brought.
`
`11. Plaintiffs and the other heirs and next of kin of their respective decedents have suffered
`
`a loss of support, loss of net accumulations, loss of household and other services, loss of care,
`
`comfort, companionship, guidance, and society, and mental anguish, sorrow, and grief as a result
`
`of the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the entry a judgment in their favor against defendant
`
`Airbus, S.A.S. for an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court,
`
`together with costs and such other amounts as may be allowed by law.
`
`1-9. As paragraphs 1 through 9 of Count II, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 9 of
`
`COUNT II
`
`Count I.
`
`10. As a further direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing defective and
`
`unreasonably dangerous conditions of the accident aircraft which resulted in the crash of the
`
`accident aircraft, plaintiffs’ decedents, and each of them, were caused to suffer multiple and
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 6 of 36 PageID #:181
`
`diverse injuries of both a personal and pecuniary nature, inclusive of conscious pain and suffering
`
`and severe terror prior to impact and prior to their deaths, and property damage.
`
`11. Had plaintiffs’ decedents survived, each of them would have been entitled to bring an
`
`action for damages and such actions have survived them.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the entry a judgment in their favor against defendant
`
`Airbus, S.A.S. for an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court,
`
`together with costs and such other amounts as may be allowed by law.
`
`COUNT III
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count III, plaintiffs reallege 1 through 4 of Count I.
`
`5. On a date prior to December 28, 2014, defendant Airbus designed, manufactured,
`
`assembled, and sold a certain Airbus 320-200 aircraft, Registration No. PX-AXC (“the accident
`
`aircraft”) and defendant Airbus further provided the operator of the accident aircraft, Air Asia,
`
`with after-sale warnings, instructions, and advice as to the maintenance, repair, and operation of
`
`the accident aircraft and further provided training to flight crews of Air Asia as to the proper and
`
`safe operation of the accident aircraft.
`
`6. On said date and at all times relevant hereto, defendant Airbus owed a duty to plaintiffs
`
`and plaintiffs’ decedents to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, assembly, and
`
`sale and the providing of after-sale warnings, instructions, advice, and training to the operator of
`
`the accident aircraft so as not to cause injury to, or the deaths of, plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`7. Defendant Airbus negligently breached its duty of care owed to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’
`
`decedents through one or more of the following negligent acts or omissions:
`
`(a) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s radar did not provide complete and accurate weather information;
`(b) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s pitot tubes and angle of attack sensors were subject to becoming
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 7 of 36 PageID #:182
`
`blocked or obstructed and providing erroneous information, including information as to
`the accident aircraft’s air speed, to the air data inertial reference units (“ADIRU”) and
`flight control computers (“FCC”);
`(c) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s ice detection system failed to detect and warn of accumulation of
`ice in certain parts of the aircraft;
`(d) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s rudder trim limiter was subject to failure, causing an
`uncommanded pitch of the accident aircraft, and one of the accident aircraft’s rudder
`trim limiter had failed prior to the subject crash;
`(e) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s angle of attack sensors were subject to failure in flight and an
`Airworthiness Directive regarding this problem was issued by the U.S. Federal Aviation
`Authority (FAA) and the defendant Airbus issued a revised protocol for responding to
`a failure in flight of the angle of attack sensors shortly prior to the subject crash;
`(f) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s angle of attack sensors provided erroneous information to the
`ADIRU’s;
`(g) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s ADIRU’s provided erroneous data and spurious signals, including
`erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the aircraft’s angle of attack, to the
`FCCs;
`(h) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s ADIRU’s failed to filter out erroneous data and spurious signals,
`including erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the accident aircraft’s angle
`of attack;
`(i) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s FCC’s failed to filter out erroneous data and spurious signals,
`including erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the accident aircraft’s angle
`of attack;
`(j) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s FCC’s commanded dangerous and unauthorized flight control
`movements;
`(k) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s FCC’s authorized uncommanded and dangerous flight control
`movements;
`(l) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft did not have adequate protection of its ADIRU’s, FCC’s and other
`components from electromagnetic interference;
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 8 of 36 PageID #:183
`
`(m) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s side stick controls provided erroneous information to the FCC’s;
`(n) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`it was difficult to recover the accident aircraft from an unusual flight attitude;
`(o) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the accident aircraft such that
`the accident aircraft’s Flight Augmentation Computers (FAC’s) were subject to failure
`and one of the accident aircraft’s FAC’s had failed and been replaced prior to the subject
`crash; when the FAC’s failed, the autopilot would become inoperative and the rudder
`limiter system, including the rudder and yaw damper, would fail, resulting in a loss of
`control;
`(p) negligently failed to warn of the above-described defects in the accident aircraft;
`(q) negligently provided or failed to provide proper and adequate after-sale warnings,
`instructions, and advice as to the maintenance, repair, and operation of the accident
`aircraft; and
`(r) negligently provided or failed to provide proper and adequate training to flight crews of
`Air Asia as to the proper and safe operation of the accident aircraft and, specifically,
`negligently failed to train such flight crews in recovery from high altitude stalls and in
`the proper procedures to be followed in the event of a failure of the FAC’s and/or the
`rudder limiter.
`8. On December 28, 2014, the accident aircraft was being operated by Air Asia as Flight
`
`No. 8501 from Surabaya, Indonesia to Singapore.
`
`9. On said date, plaintiffs’ decedents were fare paying passengers onboard the accident
`
`aircraft on the subject flight.
`
`10. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the above-described defects in the
`
`accident aircraft, the accident aircraft was caused to go into a steep high speed climb, followed by
`
`a high altitude stall; the two Flight Augmentation Computers both failed, resulting in a loss of the
`
`autopilot and a failure of the rudder limiter system and a loss of rudder and yaw control; the flight
`
`crew could not regain control of the accident aircraft and the aircraft crashed into the Java Sea,
`
`killing all those onboard, including plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`11. Plaintiffs’ decedents left surviving heirs and next of kin, including plaintiffs, for whose
`
`benefit this action is brought.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 9 of 36 PageID #:184
`
`12. Plaintiffs and the other heirs and next of kin of their respective decedents have suffered
`
`a loss of support, loss of net accumulations, loss of household and other services, loss of care,
`
`comfort, companionship, guidance, and society, and mental anguish, sorrow, and grief as a result
`
`of the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the entry a judgment in their favor against defendant
`
`Airbus, S.A.S. for an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court,
`
`together with costs and such other amounts as may be allowed by law.
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count IV, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 4 of
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Count I.
`
`5-10. As paragraphs 5-10 of Count IV, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 5-10 of Count III.
`
`11. As a further direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid negligent acts
`
`and omissions of the defendant Airbus which resulted in the crash of the accident aircraft,
`
`plaintiffs’ decedents, and each of them, were caused to suffer multiple and diverse injuries of both
`
`a personal and pecuniary nature, inclusive of conscious pain and suffering and severe terror prior
`
`to impact and prior to their deaths, and property damage.
`
`12. Had plaintiffs’ decedents survived, each of them would have been entitled to bring an
`
`action for damages and such actions have survived them.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the entry a judgment in their favor against defendant
`
`Airbus, S.A.S. for an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court,
`
`together with costs and such other amounts as may be allowed by law.
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count V, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 4 of
`
`COUNT V
`
`Count I.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 10 of 36 PageID #:185
`
`5. On a date prior to December 28, 2014, defendant Doric Corporation (“Doric”) leased
`
`the accident aircraft to Air Asia with the knowledge that Air Asia would use the accident aircraft
`
`to transport passengers for hire.
`
`6. At the time of its lease of the accident aircraft to Air Asia, defendant Doric knew, or in
`
`the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that the accident aircraft was defective in
`
`one or more of the following respects set forth in Count I, paragraph 6(a) through (o).
`
`7. At the time of its lease of the accident aircraft to Air Asia, defendant Doric knew, or in
`
`the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that Air Asia Indonesia had been placed
`
`on the European Union’s “blacklist” and prohibited from entering the airspace of a member State
`
`of the EU because of its failure to meet EU regulatory standards.
`
`8. On December 28, 2014 and at all times relevant hereto, defendant Doric owed plaintiffs
`
`and plaintiffs’ decedents a duty to exercise reasonable care in the lease of the accident aircraft to
`
`Air Asia so as not to cause injury to, or the deaths of, plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`9. Defendant Doric negligently breached its duty owed to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’
`
`decedents in one or more of the following respects:
`
`(a) negligently leased the accident aircraft to Air Asia when defendant knew or reasonably
`should have known that the accident aircraft was defective in one or more of the respects
`set forth in Count I, paragraph 6(a) through (o);
`(b) negligently failed to warn Air Asia and its flight crews of those defects in the accident
`aircraft set forth above;
`(c) negligently failed to provide post-lease warnings, instructions, advice, and training to
`the flight crews of Air Asia, specifically including training in recovery from high
`altitude stalls and in the proper procedures to be followed in the event of a failure of the
`FAC’s and/or the rudder limiter; and
`(d) negligently leased the accident aircraft to Air Asia Indonesia when defendant knew or
`reasonably should have known that Air Asia Indonesia had been placed on the European
`Union’s “blacklist” and prohibited from entering the airspace of a member State because
`of its failure to meet EU regulatory standards.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 11 of 36 PageID #:186
`
`10. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the above-stated negligent acts or
`
`omissions of defendant Doric, the accident aircraft was caused to go into a steep high speed climb,
`
`followed by a high altitude stall; the two Flight Augmentation Computers both failed, resulting in
`
`a loss of the autopilot and a failure of the rudder limiter system and a loss of rudder and yaw
`
`control; the flight crew could not regain control of the accident aircraft and the aircraft crashed
`
`into the Java Sea, killing all those onboard, including plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`11. Plaintiffs’ decedents left surviving heirs and next of kin, including plaintiffs, for whose
`
`benefit this action is brought.
`
`12. These plaintiffs and the other heirs and next of kin of their respective decedents have
`
`suffered a loss of support, loss of net accumulations, loss of household and other services, loss of
`
`care, comfort, companionship, guidance and society and mental anguish, sorrow and grief as the
`
`result of the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the entry a judgment in their favor against defendant Doric
`
`Corporation for an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, together
`
`with costs and such other amounts as may be allowed by law.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count VI, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 4 of
`
`Count I.
`
`5-9. As paragraphs 5 through 9 of Count VI, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 5 through 9 of
`
`Count V.
`
`10. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the above-stated negligent acts or
`
`omissions of defendant Doric which resulted in the crash of the accident aircraft as stated above,
`
`plaintiffs’ decedents, and each of them, were caused to suffer multiple and diverse injuries of both
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 12 of 36 PageID #:187
`
`a personal and pecuniary nature, inclusive of conscious pain and suffering and severe terror prior
`
`to impact and prior to their deaths, and property damage.
`
`11. Had plaintiffs’ decedents survived, they each would have been entitled to bring an action
`
`for damages and such actions have survived them.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the entry a judgment in their favor against defendant Doric
`
`Corporation for an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, together
`
`with costs and such other amounts as may be allowed by law.
`
`COUNT VII
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count VII, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 4 of
`
`Count I.
`
`5. On a date prior to December 28, 2014, defendant Honeywell International
`
`(“Honeywell”) designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft.
`
`6. At the time the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft left the custody and control of
`
`defendant Honeywell, they were defective and unreasonably dangerous in one or more of the
`
`following respects, among other defects:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`the ADIRU’s provided erroneous data and spurious signals, including, but not limited
`to, erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the accident aircraft’s air speed and
`angle of attack, to the accident aircraft’s flight control computers;
`the ADIRU’s failed to filter out erroneous data and spurious signals, including, but not
`limited to, erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the accident aircraft’s air
`speed and angle of attack;
`the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft did not have adequate protection against
`electromagnetic interference; and
`the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft failed to contain any warnings of the above
`described defects.
`7. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the above-described defects in the
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft, the accident aircraft was caused to go into a steep high speed
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 13 of 36 PageID #:188
`
`climb, followed by a high altitude stall; the two Flight Augmentation Computers both failed,
`
`resulting in a loss of the autopilot and a failure of the rudder limiter system and a loss of rudder
`
`and yaw control; the flight crew could not regain control of the accident aircraft and the aircraft
`
`crashed into the Java Sea, killing all those onboard, including plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`8. Plaintiffs’ decedents left surviving heirs and next of kin, including plaintiffs, for whose
`
`benefit this action is brought.
`
`9. Plaintiffs and the other heirs and next of kin of their respective decedents have suffered
`
`a loss of support, loss of net accumulations, loss of household and other services, loss of care,
`
`comfort, companionship, guidance and society and mental anguish, sorrow and grief as the result
`
`of the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, pray for the entry of a
`
`judgment in their favor and against defendant Honeywell International for an amount in excess of
`
`the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, together with costs and such other damages as
`
`may be allowed by law.
`
`COUNT VIII
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count VIII, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 4 of
`
`Count I.
`
`5-6. As paragraphs 5 and 6 of Count VIII, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 5 and 6 of Count
`
`VII.
`
`7. As a further direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing defective and
`
`unreasonably dangerous conditions of the ADIRU’s on the accident aircraft which resulted in the
`
`crash of the accident aircraft, plaintiffs’ decedents were caused to suffer multiple and diverse
`
`injuries of both a personal and pecuniary nature, inclusive of conscious pain and suffering and
`
`severe terror prior to impact and prior to their deaths, and property damage.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 14 of 36 PageID #:189
`
`8. Had plaintiffs’ decedents survived, they would have been entitled to bring an action for
`
`damages, and such action has survived them.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, pray for the entry of a
`
`judgment in their favor and against defendant Honeywell International for an amount in excess of
`
`the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, together with costs and such other damages as
`
`may be allowed by law.
`
`COUNT IX
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count IX, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 4 of
`
`Count I.
`
`5. On a date prior to December 28, 2014, defendant Honeywell designed, manufactured,
`
`assembled and sold the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft.
`
`6. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Honeywell owed a duty to plaintiffs and
`
`plaintiffs’ decedents to use reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, assembling and selling
`
`the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft so as not to cause injury to, and the deaths of, plaintiffs’
`
`decedents.
`
`7. Defendant Honeywell negligently breached its duty of care owed to plaintiffs and
`
`plaintiffs’ decedents through one or more of the following negligent acts and omissions:
`
`(a) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the ADIRU’s in the accident
`aircraft such that the ADIRU’s provided erroneous data and spurious signals, including,
`but not limited to, erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the accident aircraft’s
`air speed and angle of attack, to the accident aircraft’s flight control computers;
`(b) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the ADIRU’s in the accident
`aircraft such that the ADIRU’s failed to filter out erroneous data and spurious signals,
`including, but not limited to, erroneous data and spurious signals concerning the
`accident aircraft’s air speed and angle of attack;
`(c) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the ADIRU’s in the accident
`aircraft such that the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft did not have adequate protection
`against electromagnetic interference; and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 15 of 36 PageID #:190
`
`(d) negligently designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the ADIRU’s in the accident
`aircraft such that the ADIRU’s in the accident aircraft failed to contain any warnings of
`the above described defects.
`8. As the direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid negligent acts and
`
`omissions of defendant Honeywell, the accident aircraft was caused to go into a steep high speed
`
`climb, followed by a high altitude stall; the two Flight Augmentation Computers both failed,
`
`resulting in a loss of the autopilot and a failure of the rudder limiter system and a loss of rudder
`
`and yaw control; the flight crew could not regain control of the accident aircraft; and the accident
`
`aircraft crashed into the Java Sea, killing all those onboard, including plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`9. Plaintiffs’ decedents left surviving heirs and next of kin, including plaintiffs, for whose
`
`benefit this action is brought.
`
`10. Plaintiffs and the other heirs and next of kin of their respective decedents have suffered
`
`a loss of support, loss of net accumulations, loss of household and other services, loss of care,
`
`comfort, companionship, guidance and society and mental anguish, sorrow and grief as the result
`
`of the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, pray for the entry of a
`
`judgment in their favor and against defendant Honeywell International for an amount in excess of
`
`the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, together with costs and such other damages as
`
`may be allowed by law.
`
`COUNT X
`
`1-4. As paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count X, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 4 of
`
`Count I.
`
`5-8. As paragraphs 5 through 8 of Count X, plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 5 through 8 of
`
`Count IX.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cv-05486 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/15/15 Page 16 of 36 PageID #:191
`
`9. As a further direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid negligent acts
`
`and omissions of defendant Honeywell which resulted in the crash of the accident aircraft,
`
`plaintiffs’ decedents were caused to suffer multiple and diverse injuries of both a personal and
`
`pecuniary nature, inclusive of conscious pain and suffering and severe terror prior to impact and
`
`prior to their deaths, and property damage.
`
`10. Had plaintiffs’ decedents survived, they would have been entitled to bring an action for
`
`damages, and such action has survived them.
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, through their undersigned counsel, pray for the entry of a
`
`judgment in their favor and against defendant Honeywell International for an amount in excess of
`
`the min