Personal Injury
Defective ProductsPersonal Injury Legal Cases
Parachute Defect Causes Severe Ground Impact, Leads To Catastrophic Injuries
Attorneys for Plaintiff SANG BONG KIM
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE- CENTRAL DISTRICT
SANG BONG KIM,
Plaintiff,
SKYDIVE ELSINORE, a California Corporation, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, an individual, PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., a Florida Corporation, SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., an Ohio Corporation, AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
_____________________________________)
CASE NO: _____________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. Negligence;
2. Strict Product Liability; and
3. Negligent Product Liability
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Comes now plaintiff SANG BONG KIM and for causes of action against defendants,
alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. At all relevant times herein, plaintiff was a resident of South Korea.
2. At all relevant times herein, defendant SKYDIVE ELSINORE was a California
corporation, with its principal place of business located in the County of Riverside, State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that SKYDIVE ELSINORE was approved and licensed by the California Department of Aviation to engage in commercial parachuting and skydiving activities, and used property in and around 20701 Cereal Road, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, State of California as a loading area for aerial flights for parachuting and skydiving activities.
3. At all relevant times herein, defendant LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE ("NOGGLE") was
a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that NOGGLE, was an officer of SKYDIVE ELSINORE, which club, at all times mentioned, had adopted and made as a part of its regulations, the safety regulations of the International Freefall Association
4. At all relevant times herein, defendant PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., was a
Florida corporation, with a principal place of business located at 1300 E. International Speedway Blvd., DeLand, Florida 32724.
5. At all relevant times herein, defendant SSK INDUSTRIES, INC. was an Ohio
Corporation with a principal place of business located at 1008 Monroe Road, Lebanon, Ohio 45036
6. At all relevant times herein, defendant AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC. was an Illinois
Corporation with a principal place of business located at 730 Raquet Club Dr., Addison, Illinois 60101
7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES
1 to 100, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities when that information is ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each such fictitiously named defendant is legally responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiff's injuries and damages were legally caused by each such defendant's actions.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants, and each of
them, were the agents, servants and/or employees of their co-defendants, and that in doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the course, scope, purpose, and/or authority of such agency or employment with the full knowledge, permission and consent of each of their co-defendants.
9. Defendants PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., and AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and each of them, were and are engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, inspecting, servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, modifying, aftermarket equipping and modifying, leasing, renting, selling, retailing, wholesaling and advertising a certain subject PARACHUTE (as well as and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides), and each and every component part thereof, used by Plaintiff, SANG BONG KIM, during the jump described herein, (hereinafter, the PARACHUTE), which defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, would be used without inspection for defects in its parts, mechanisms or design, for use in the State of California and elsewhere. 10. From and after the receipt of the license to engage in commercial parachuting and skydiving activities in and around the City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, State of California, members of defendant club, SKYDIVE ELSINORE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, committed repeated violations of the rules and regulations of the California Department of Aviation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the International Freefall Association, the United States Department of Transportation and violated other state, county and municipal regulations relative to parachuting and skydiving activities.
11. On July 5, 2009, Plaintiff, Sang Bong Kim, made a flight and parachute jump from
an aircraft owned, operated, leased, borrowed, and/or under the control of defendants SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them.
12. The PARACHUTE used by plaintiff, and all related usual, customary and necessary
apparatus for such PARACHUTE was packed by an individual who held himself out to the public as a qualified PARACHUTE packer ("rigger"). On and around July 5, 2009, this person solicited business as a qualified, properly certified and licensed parachute rigger on or around the physical location known as 20701 Cereal Road, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, State of California, which is owned and operated by defendant, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them. On or around July 5, 2009, this rigger (name unknown at this time) solicited his services to plaintiff as a qualified, properly certified and licenced parachute rigger.
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereby alleges that the rigger who packed Plaintiff's PARACHUTE was, at all relevant times, under the exclusive control of defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and at all relevant times was an employee and agent of SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them.
14. Plaintiff is also informed and believes, and thereby alleges that the PARACHUTE
packed by this rigger was not packed properly and not packed in conformity with rules and regulations set forth by the California Department of Aviation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the International Freefall Association, the United States Department of Transportation and other state, county and municipal regulations relative to parachuting and skydiving activities, including the packing/rigging of parachutes.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE
(Against Defendants SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE NOGGLE, and DOES 1 - 50))
15. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 14 above, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
16. At the time of the packing of the PARACHUTE used by plaintiff, defendants,
SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, , and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently failed to be present or have a qualified assistant present while the PARACHUTE was packed to be used by plaintiff during his jump. This failure is in violation of the rules and regulations of defendant club, SKYDIVE ELSINORE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and in violation of federal, state, and local governmental regulations.
17. At the time of the packing of the PARACHUTE used by plaintiff, defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently failed to make certain that a qualified, certified and licenced packer/rigger packed Plaintiff's PARACHUTE for use during Plaintiff's jump. This failure is in violation of the rules and regulations of defendant club, SKYDIVE ELSINORE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and in violation of federal, state, and local governmental regulations.
18. At the time of the packing of the PARACHUTE used by plaintiff, defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently failed to make certain that the PARACHUTE was appropriate for Plaintiff's experience and skill level as a jumper/skydiver. This failure is in violation of the rules and regulations of defendant club, SKYDIVE ELSINORE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and in violation of federal, state, and local governmental regulations.
19. At the time of the packing of the PARACHUTE used by plaintiff, defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently failed to make certain that the PARACHUTE was properly and appropriately functional. This failure is in violation of the rules and regulations of defendant club, SKYDIVE ELSINORE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and in violation of federal, state, and local governmental regulations.
20. On July 5, 2009, an aircraft under the possession and control of defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, commenced its flight with plaintiff as a passenger from a physical location owned and operated by defendant, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, operated by a pilot under the sole control and at the request and retention of defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them. Plaintiff planned to safely jump from this aircraft and skydive to a safe ground impact and landing with the use of functional and operative parachuting/skydiving equipment. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereby alleges that the pilot of the plane and jump master (names unknown at this time) were then members of and/or employees of defendant club, SKYDIVE ELSINORE and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them.
21. Defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently allowed the jump to be made by plaintiff, knowing that plaintiff had not received sufficient training and instruction in making a jump with the type of parachute packed for him; knowing that Plaintiff's PARACHUTE was packed without proper supervision and by a person without the proper qualifications, certifications and licensing; and knowing that the PARACHUTE itself was not properly functional and operative. However, despite such knowledge, defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, failed to require plaintiff to be properly equipped for such a jump, and negligently allowed plaintiff to jump even though Plaintiff's jump was being made in violation of federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
22. Defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1through 50, inclusive and each of them, were aware at all relevant times of the purposes for which the packing/rigging of the PARACHUTE and the flight were being made, and were aware of prior violations of existing federal, state, and local regulations and rules regarding parachuting and skydiving activities committed by defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them.
23. Defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, and each of them, were aware that were or should have been aware that the PARACHUTE used by plaintiff was defective, had been improperly packed, and that plaintiff was improperly trained and improperly equipped to make such a jump.
24. Defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, and each of them, knew, or should have known, that the jump was being made with an improperly packed/rigged PARACHUTE, with a defective PARACHUTE and by a jumper who was improperly trained and equipped to make such a jump. However, in spite of that knowledge, defendants, SKYDIVE ELSINORE, LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently allowed the flight to be made and negligently allowed the jump by plaintiff to proceed.
25. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants SKYDIVE ELSINORE,
LAWRENCE E. NOGGLE, and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the PARACHUTE, Plaintiff's PARACHUTE canopies did not properly deploy, and plaintiff struck the ground at high speed and without the benefit of the parachute, thereby suffering serious and permanent injuries, legally resulting in Plaintiff's special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
///
///
///
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY
(Against Defendants PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 51 through 100)
26. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs
1 through 25 above, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
27. At the time that the PARACHUTE, including each of its component parts, left the control of defendants, PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, those defendants knew that the PARACHUTE was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by the users of that PARACHUTE including but not limited to plaintiff who was at all times herein mentioned, the legal purchaser and owner of the PARACHUTE.
28. The PARACHUTE and each of its component parts was manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, serviced, adjusted, selected and used with inherent vices and defects both in design and manufacturing and by failure to warn (hereinafter "SUBJECT DEFECTS") which made it dangerous, hazardous and unsafe both for its intended use or for reasonably foreseeable misuses because its canopies and component parts are and were inadequately designed and constructed and failed to provide the degree of protection and safety a reasonable consumer would expect in foreseeable parachute and skydiving jumps occurring in the real world environment of its expected use.
29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereby alleges that the SUBJECT
DEFECTS included, but were not limited to the following:
A. Improper design and manufacture of the main and emergency canopies;
B. Improper design and manufacture of the lines to the main and emergency canopies;
C. Improper materials used in the manufacture of the housing and its component parts for the lines to the main and emergency canopies;
D. Improper design and manufacture of emergency control hardware and its component parts;
E.. Lack of any warnings and/or insufficient warnings regarding all of the above
defects.
30. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that, Defendants, PERFORMANCE
DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, and each of them , manufactured, designed, tested, inspected, and sold the PARACHUTE and its component parts, and that those defendants knew, or should have known, that the PARACHUTE would be purchased and operated by members of the general public who would rely on defendants to transmit any relevant warnings about said PARACHUTE.
31. The PARACHUTE and each of its component parts was unsafe for its intended use and for reasonably foreseeable misuses by reason of the defects in its design and/or manufacturing and/or failure to warn by defendants, PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, in that when the PARACHUTE and each of its component parts was used by plaintiff on July 5, 2009, as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, the PARACHUTE, during reasonably foreseeable parachuting or skydiving maneuvers, was dangerous and defective. When plaintiff properly activated the main and emergency canopies, the canopies did not properly deploy/open and accordingly, the PARACHUTE failed to provide proper ground impact protection, legally causing severe injuries legally resulting in Plaintiff's' damages as set forth herein.
32. Defendants, PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are strictly liable for the defects inherent in the PARACHUTE, and serious and permanent injuries were caused thereby to plaintiff, legally resulting in Plaintiff's special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT PRODUCT LIABILITY
(Against Defendants PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 51 through 100) 34. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 33 above, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
35. At all times mentioned, defendants, PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, had a duty to properly manufacture, design, assemble, package, test, fabricate, analyze, inspect, merchandise, market, distribute, label, advertise, promote, sell, supply, lease, rent, warn, select, inspect, service, maintain, and repair said PARACHUTE and each of its component parts.
36. At all times mentioned, defendants, PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 51through 100, inclusive, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the PARCHUTE and each of its component parts were not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, serviced, maintained, selected and provided inadequate warnings and/or no warnings for the use and purpose for which it was intended in that it was likely to injure or kill the person(s) who used said PARACHUTE, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
37. Defendants PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 1through 100, inclusive, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly, manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, modified, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, serviced, maintained, selected and provided inadequate warnings and provided the PARACHUTE and each of its component parts so that it was a defective and dangerous product, unsafe for the respective use and purpose for which it was intended when used as recommended or for reasonably foreseeable misuse by members of the public, including plaintiff. In particular, said PARACHUTE and each of its component parts during a reasonably foreseeable jump/skydive, was dangerous and defective in that the canopies failed to open properly and provided inadequate protection from ground impact, causing plaintiff to sustain severe injuries.
38. As a direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, and unlawful conduct of the defendants, PERFORMANCE DESIGNS, INC., SSK INDUSTRIES, INC., AIRTEC PNEUMATICS, INC., and DOES 1through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the PARACHUTE, defendants legally caused the severe personal injuries to plaintiff, in turn legally resulting in plaintiffs' damages as set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. For special and economic damages including past and future medical expenses, and loss of past and future earnings and earning capacity, according to proof at trial;
2. For general damages including past and future pain, suffering, and emotional distress;
3. For prejudgment interest, as determined by and accrued according to applicable statutes;
4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5. For any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: November 23, 2010 Bisnar | Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP
By:__________________________________
BRIAN D CHASE, ESQ.
SCOTT A. RITSEMA, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
DATED: November 23, 2010 Bisnar | Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP
By:__________________________________
BRIAN D CHASE, ESQ.
SCOTT A. RITSEMA, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
(click on icons for more information)
SLS Consulting
