Products Liability Law Daily Boeing facing multiple lawsuits arising from Ethiopian Airlines crash
Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Boeing facing multiple lawsuits arising from Ethiopian Airlines crash

By Kathleen Bianco, J.D.

Complaints filed on behalf of ten Canadians killed in the 737 MAX 8 crash allege Boeing placed profits over safety.

A lawsuit arising from the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has been filed in Illinois federal court against Chicago-based Boeing Co. and others by the next of kin of a Canadian woman who perished in the March 10th crash along with her husband, daughters, and parents. Among the claims asserted against the aircraft manufacturer are negligence, defective design, and failure to warn with respect to the at-issue aircraft, a Boeing 737 MAX 8 that experienced flight control problems immediately after takeoff and uncontrollably pitched downward into the ground near the town of Bishoftu, Ethiopia. This complaint is one of several that were filed against the aircraft manufacturer this week on behalf of ten Canadian victims by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP and Clifford Law Offices, according to press releases issued by each firm (Vaidya v. Boeing Co., April 29, 2019).

On March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 took off from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, Kenya. Within minutes of its departure, the pilot radioed that he was having flight control problems and requested permission to return to the airport in Addis Ababa. According to the flight crew, the plane was accelerating abnormally and was oscillating up and down. Shortly thereafter, all communication with Flight 302 stopped and the plane crashed into a field, killing all 157 people on board, including a 37-year-old Canadian woman traveling with her family back to the place where she was born.

The abnormal acceleration and vertical oscillations mirrored the problems experienced five months earlier by the pilots of Lion Air Flight 610, a scheduled flight operated by PT Lion Mentari Airlines from Jakarta to Pangkal Pinang, Indonesia, that crashed into the Java Sea and killed all 189 passengers and crew [see Products Liability Law Daily’s March 22, 2019 analysis]. Investigations into both crashes are ongoing, but preliminary reports indicate that both airliners—Boeing Model 737 MAX 8s—may have experienced the same malfunction, i.e., an unwarranted activation of the aircraft’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which is supposed to stabilize the plane in flight. In the days following the Flight 302 crash, all countries grounded Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 9 aircraft from continued operation.

The woman’s brother, who also lost his parents, brother-in-law, and two nieces in the crash, filed suit against Boeing and Rosemount Aerospace, Inc., the manufacturer of flight sensors used in Boeing aircraft. According to the deceased woman’s representative, following the Lion Air crash, Boeing knew or had reason to suspect that a malfunction in the aircraft’s external sensor and MCAS may have been responsible for the accident. The aircraft manufacturer issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) identifying the potential danger presented by the flight control system but failing to provide clear instructions on what pilots should do in the event of a sensor failure. Boeing also failed to insist on further training of pilots to deal with the defective sensor or MCAS software, downplayed the significance of the threat presented by the MCAS, and did not call for any aggressive action to prevent further incidents, the complaint asserted. Causes of action asserted against the company include negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, failure to warn, and civil conspiracy, while Rosemount faces claims of negligence and strict liability.

Negligence. The complaint contends that Boeing breached its duty of care to the decedent with respect to the design, manufacture, inspection, testing, assembly, certification, distribution, and/or sale of a safe, airworthy aircraft—including the failure to train, instruct, and/or issue advisory warnings necessary to assure the safe operation, control, management, and/or maintenance of the 737 MAX 8 aircraft.

The potential harm to airline passengers, pilots, crews, and the public from the 737 MAX 8 was objectively foreseeable both in nature and in scope and was subjectively known to Boeing because of the company’s own safety assessment of the sensor and MCAS during development of the aircraft, which revealed potential problems with the system, as well as the evidence that flight control issues caused the crash of Lion Air Flight 610, complaints lodged by pilots in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Safety Reporting System database regarding the performance of the MCAS, the lack of clear instruction and training, the occurrence of unexpected MCAS dives/flight control issues, and Boeing’s identification of a software upgrade to address problems with the sensors and flight control system in the weeks and months prior to the crash of Flight 302.

Strict liability. The 737 MAX 8 aircraft and its component parts were being used for the purposes of which they were manufactured, designed, inspected, sold, and intended to be used, and in a manner reasonably foreseeable to the aircraft manufacturer. According to the complaint, the 737 MAX 8 and its component parts were defective, dangerous, unsafe, and not airworthy by reason of defective manufacture, design, warning systems, inspections, testing, service, and/or maintenance of the subject aircraft and its component parts. Further, the aircraft and its component parts were in a substantially similar condition to their original condition at delivery to Ethiopian Airlines.

Failure to warn. Ordinary consumers, including but not limited to airlines, flight crew, and passengers, would not have recognized the potential risks presented by the aircraft’s unreasonably dangerous and defective design, the complaint maintained. In that regard, Boeing unlawfully provided incomplete and inadequate warnings to pilots, passengers, and the public that severely understated and downplayed the serious known safety risk associated with continued flight of the 737 MAX 8. The decedent relied on this to her detriment, being duped into a false sense of security about riding on a 737 MAX 8.

Civil conspiracy. Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration allegedly deceived the public as to the safety of the 737 MAX 8 aircraft and its component parts and systems by: (1) certifying the aircraft and the MCAS as safe based upon false and/or inaccurate information; (2) failing to provide clear instruction in flight manuals or informing pilots as to automated systems embedded in the 737 MAX 8 aircraft; (3) denying technical experts the necessary time or resources to thoroughly evaluate the 737 MAX 8 aircraft; and (4) compelling technical experts to certify the aircraft despite their concerns about the safety of the 737 MAX 8—all in violation of applicable laws, regulations, and mandatory duties.

Damages. The complaint is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and is demanding a jury trial as to all claims in the action.

The case is No. 1:19-cv-02839.

Attorneys: Robert A. Clifford (Clifford Law Offices, PC) for Manant Vaidya.

Companies: The Boeing Co.; Rosemount Aerospace, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory ComplaintNewsStory DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews DamagesNews AircraftWatercraftNews IllinoisNews

Back to Top

Interested in submitting an article?

Submit your information to us today!

Learn More
Reading Products Liability Law Daily on phone

Product Liability Law Daily: Breaking legal news at your fingertips

Sign up today for your free trial to this daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys. Stay up to date on product liability legal matters with same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity with easy access through email or mobile app.

Free Trial Learn More