Newman v. Socata SAS

Newman v. Socata SAS

Opinion

 [*1323]  ORDER

In February 2007, a Socata TBM 700B aircraft ("the TBM 700") piloted by Michael Milot crashed during a missed approach at New Bedford Regional Airport in Massachusetts,  [**3] killing Mr. Milot and the two passengers on the plane. ¹ The crash allegedly occurred due to a loss of control consistent with a "torque roll"—a roll to the left upon an increase in engine power such as would occur during a missed approach—for which the TBM 700 allegedly had a known propensity. Prior to the crash, Defendant Simcom International, Inc. ("Simcom") had trained Mr. Milot, a licensed pilot, in the operation of the TBM 700 but allegedly did not warn him of the TBM 700's propensity to torque roll when engine power is increased.

Plaintiffs, the administrators of the deceased's estates, have sued Simcom, alleging breach of contract and negligence, ² but Simcom moves to dismiss, arguing that these claims are in essence "educational malpractice claims" that are not cognizable in Florida. ³ Florida courts have barred "educational malpractice" claims, but it is not likely that the Supreme Court of Florida would extend that bar to the claims against Simcom,  [**4] a private, for-profit flight school that allegedly owed and breached a duty to warn and train regarding a known lethal propensity of an aircraft. Accordingly, Socata's motion to dismiss must be denied.

I. Allegations of the Amended Complaint

Under an agreement with Socata, Simcom provided the majority of TBM 700 simulated flight training offered in the United States, and Simcom held itself out as the leading provider of classroom and simulator-based flight training on the TBM 700. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 36). In July 2006—seven months prior to the crash at issue here—Mr. Milot attended Simcom's initial TBM 700 flight training program at the company's training center in Orlando, Florida. (Id. ¶ 37). The program was  [*1324]  designed to train experienced pilots to fly the TBM 700 aircraft. At the conclusion of the course, Mr. Milot was issued a Pilot Proficiency Certificate, indicating that he had successfully completed the initial training course in accordance with Simcom's standards. (Id.).

By the time of the crash at issue in this case,  [**5] there had already been at least fifteen accidents reported by the National Transportation Safety Board and its counterpart, the United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch, referencing torque roll or similar conditions. (Id. ¶ 29). Simcom allegedly knew or should have known about the accidents involving torque roll of TBM 700 aircraft and the defective, unsafe, and dangerous flight characteristics of the aircraft. (Id. ¶¶ 89, 90). Plaintiffs assert that Simcom owed a duty to warn Mr. Milot of the TBM 700's known propensity to torque roll and to otherwise competently train him regarding flying that type of aircraft. (Id. ¶¶ 78-79). Plaintiffs further allege that there was a foreseeable risk of harm from Simcom's acts or omissions and that Simcom breached its duty by failing to inform and warn Mr. Milot of the propensity of the TBM 700 to torque roll. (Id. ¶¶ 79, 81, 87-88). Finally, Plaintiffs contend that Simcom's failure to warn Mr. Milot and to train him regarding the torque roll propensity of the TBM 700 was the proximate cause of the crash and of the deaths of the three occupants of the plane. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 82, 83, 122).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.