Robert J.

Fuller (#10061)
[email protected]
FULLER LAW OFFICE, LC
1090 North 5900 East
Eden, Utah 84310
Telephone (801) 791-7736
Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WEBER COUNTY

)
SAMANTHA L. SANDOVAL and ) COMPLAINT
DARIOUS (RANDY) SANDOVAL, )
) (TIER 2)
Plaintiffs, )
) Civil No. ____________
vs. )
) Judge __________
LAWRENCE D. ERICK, and JOHN DOE )
REPAIRMAN, JOHN DOE INSPECTOR, )
JOHN DOES I-X, )
)
Defendants. )
)

Plaintiffs SAMANTHA L. SANDOVAL and DARIOUS (RANDY) SANDOVAL,

through counsel, complain and allege causes of action against Defendants LAWRENCE D.

ERICK, and JOHN DOE REPAIRMAN, JOHN DOE INSPECTOR, JOHN DOES I-X, and

demand judgment as follows:

Page 1 of 16
 PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs SAMANTHA L. SANDOVAL and DARIOUS (RANDY)

SANDOVAL (ASamantha,@ and "Randy," respectfully, or collectively referred to as Plaintiffs),

husband and wife, are individuals who reside in Roy City, Weber County, State of Utah.

2. Defendant LAWRENCE D. ERICK (ALawrence,@ "pilot," or Defendant) is

an individual who crashed an aircraft into Samantha, and is believed to be residing in Apache

Junction, Arizona.

3. Defendant JOHN DOE REPAIRMAN is the individual believed to have

worked on or changed the fuel line, worked on other repairs, and possibly inspected the airplane

that Lawrence crashed into Samantha. JOHN DOE REPAIRMAN did the work in or near

Ogden, Utah, at the Ogden-Hinckley Airport, and is believed to be a resident of Utah. This

defendant will be specifically named as discovery progresses and after his or her true identity is

disclosed.

4. Defendant JOHN DOE INSPECTOR is the individual believed to have

inspected the airplane that Lawrence crashed into Samantha, and is the individual referred to in

the National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Preliminary Report wherein is states

that "The pilot reported the airplane recently came out of inspection." The inspector is believed

to be a resident of Utah. This defendant will be specifically named as discovery progresses and

after his or her true identity is disclosed.

5. Defendants JOHN DOES I-X are other possible parties whose true names

are unknown and who may have contributed to Plaintiffs' injuries and will be specifically named

Page 2 of 16
as discovery progresses and their true identities are disclosed. They may be employer(s) of the

Defendant(s) who are also liable for Plaintiffs' injury and damages, aircraft manufacturers,

aircraft seller(s), fuel suppliers, annual aircraft A&PP inspector(s), or others.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

6. The Second District Court of Weber County, State of Utah, is the proper

venue and has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Article VIII, '5, of the Utah Constitution

and U.C.A. §78A-5-102.

7. The acts, omissions, and accident upon which this complaint is based

occurred entirely or substantially in Weber County, State of Utah, making this Court the proper

venue under U.C.A. §78B-3-307.

8. Plaintiffs have standing in this case as a result of, among other things, the

personal physical injuries inflicted upon Plaintiffs and their property damages as a result of the

accident at issue which caused Plaintiffs' damages and occurred in Weber County, State of Utah.

9. The amount at issue exceeds $50,000.00 and is currently at the Tier 2

amount of $300,000.00, exclusive of fees and costs.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. On or about the afternoon of September 12, 2017 (Aaccident@ date),

plaintiff Samantha was lawfully driving her vehicle southbound on 1900 W. at approximately

4500 S. in Roy City, Weber County, Utah.

11. At the same time Samantha was driving her vehicle, defendant Lawrence

was believed to be the owner and the pilot of an aircraft, tail number 9798L (the "airplane"), who

Page 3 of 16
took off in the airplane from the Ogden-Hinckley Airport on or about the afternoon of September

12, 2017.

12. Defendant Lawrence took off from the airport on the accident date with a

plan to do a "touch and go" to see how the plane was doing.

13. On or about September 12, 2017, defendant Lawrence failed to maintain

the proper control of the aircraft he was flying shortly after taking off from the airport and he

piloted the airplane into the vehicle Samantha was driving, causing a crash that caught both the

aircraft and Samantha's vehicle on fire (the "accident" at issue).

14. Samantha's Malibu ("vehicle"), with her inside, was spun around at least

180o as a result of the airplane crashing on top of her at a high a high rate of airspeed.

15. The airplane striking the vehicle totally destroyed the plaintiffs' vehicle.

16. Samantha was initially unable to get out of her vehicle while the inside

and outside of her vehicle was engulfed in flames caused by the airplane collision.

17. Samantha was eventually assisted out of her vehicle by bystanders while

the airplane and Samantha's vehicle were burning.

18. Samantha was transported from the accident scene to the hospital to treat

her physical injuries that were caused by the accident.

19. The airplane Lawrence crashed into Samantha had been in outside storage

at the Ogden-Hinckley Airport for more than three years prior to Lawrence purchasing the

airplane.

Page 4 of 16
 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

~ NEGLIGENCE, PILOT NEGLIGENCE & LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW ~

20. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference those allegations contained in the

numbered paragraphs above.

21. Defendant Lawrence was the sole pilot of the airplane involved in the

accident at issue.

22. The pilot of the aircraft is directly and ultimately responsible for the

operation of his aircraft.

23. Defendant pilot Lawrence was subject to a variety of Federal Aviation

Regulations (“FAR's”) before taking off in the airplane and at the time of the accident, which

have the force and effect of law.

24. Defendant pilot Lawrence violated the Federal Aviation Regulations at the

time of the accident because, among other reasons, he was operating an aircraft that was not

airworthy.

25. Defendant pilot Lawrence's airplane that he was flying was not airworthy

at the moment in time when the airplane made contact with the vehicle that Samantha was

driving.

26. No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy

condition.

27. The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining

whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.

Page 5 of 16
 28. Defendant pilot Lawrence had a duty to make sure the airplane he was

flying on the day of the accident was airworthy and he breached that duty because the airplane

was not airworthy.

29. Defendant pilot Lawrence had a duty to determine, before taking off on

the day of the accident, that the airplane he was flying was in the proper condition for safe flight,

and he breached that duty because the aircraft was not in a condition for safe flight.

30. Defendant pilot Lawrence's breach of duties while negligently piloting the

airplane directly and proximately caused the economic, non-economic, and personal physical

injuries and damages to plaintiffs as listed below in this complaint, incorporated by reference.

31. Defendant pilot Lawrence was the pilot in command of the airplane and is

therefore directly responsible and liable for the negligent operation of the aircraft.

32. Defendant pilot Lawrence violated, among other rules and regulations,

FAR §91.3, §91.7, and §91.409 by not having the plane properly inspected.

33. Defendant pilot Lawrence violated FAR §91.403 because as the "owner or

operator of an aircraft [he] is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy

condition, including compliance with part 39 of this [the FAR] chapter," and he failed to

properly maintain the aircraft, which caused the accident.

34. Violation of an FAR by a pilot constitutes negligence as a matter of law.

35. Defendant pilot Lawrence is negligent as a matter of law for breaching the

duties he owed to Plaintiffs' while he negligently prepared the airplane for flight, while he was

Page 6 of 16
attempting to fly the airplane on the day of the accident, and at the moment of impact between

the airplane and the Plaintiffs' vehicle.

36. Defendant pilot Lawrence is subject to the highest degree of duty and

highest degree of care because pilots are charged with that which they should have known in the

exercise of the highest degree of care.

37. In the alternative, if the defendant pilot Lawrence is not negligent as a

matter of law, he was negligent in causing the accident because he breached the highest duty of

care as a pilot, or in the alternative, he was negligent in piloting the airplane into Samantha's

vehicle and did not use reasonable care.

38. Pilots must study and know the appropriate provisions of the Airman's

Information Manual (“AIM”) pertaining to their flying activities.

39. Defendant Lawrence was negligent in failing to follow the appropriate

provision required under the AIM while preparing to fly the airplane and while crashing into

Samantha.

40. Defendant Lawrence had a duty and breached his duty to obey aviation

and traffic regulations as he was attempting to land his aircraft on a public street and a duty to

use reasonable care while piloting his vehicle.

41. Defendant Lawrence owed the Plaintiff a duty to drive safely and to

prevent his vehicle from colliding with Plaintiffs' vehicle, which he breached.

42. Defendant Lawrence had a duty to stop his vehicle before driving,

running, or flying into Plaintiffs' vehicle, which he breached.

Page 7 of 16
 43. Defendant Lawrence breached the duties he owed to Samantha and Randy

by failing to control his vehicle and failing to land his airplane someplace other than on the top

of Plaintiffs' vehicle.

44. Defendant Lawrence had a duty to see, or know from seeing, that the

highway he was attempting to land on was clear and safe for him to land on at the speed he was

maintaining, and he breached this duty by crashing into Samantha.

45. The proper way to "see how an airplane is doing" is to conduct an annual

inspection or proper inspection pursuant to Federal Aviation Requirements prior to taking off in

the airplane as opposed to taking off to conduct a "touch and go" maneuver.

46. The defendant pilot breached the duties he owed to Plaintiffs by failing to

properly pay attention while flying, or in the alternative, by flying while being distracted.

47. Defendant Lawrence knew or had reason to know that failure to control

his airplane could cause an accident and it was foreseeable that steering his airplane into

Samantha's vehicle could injure the Plaintiffs.

48. It was foreseeable to the defendant pilot that crashing his airplane with

fuel into Samantha's vehicle could catch the Plaintiffs'' vehicle on fire.

49. Defendant Lawrence’s breach of duties were the proximate causes of the

Plaintiffs' injuries.

50. Plaintiffs in fact suffered injuries and damages caused by Defendant

Lawrence’s negligence when the Defendant steered or piloted his airplane into the Plaintiffs'

vehicle.

Page 8 of 16
 51. Defendant Lawrence could have prevented the accident by properly

inspecting, maintaining, and/or properly controlling his airplane before he crashed into the

Plaintiffs' vehicle.

52. Special, or economic damages caused by Defendant Lawrence include, but

are not limited, to the following:

53. All of the past and future medical expenses as a result of or related to the

accident.

54. All of Plaintiffs' past and future lost wages, lost benefits, lost earning

capacity, and lost opportunities while recovering from the accident.

55. All of the vehicle and personal property damages caused by the accident.

56. All of the “out of pocket” costs Plaintiffs have paid and will pay as a result

of the accident.

57. All of the services and costs Plaintiffs have required while recovering

from the accident that were caused by the accident.

58. General, or non-economic damages caused by Defendant Lawrence

include the pain and suffering caused by the accident, the medical procedures, the recovery

process, emotional damages, and physical therapy required as a result of the accident, both past

and future.

59. Defendant Lawrence is liable for all personal bodily injuries caused when

his airplane crashed into Samantha, which may include, but are not limited to the following:

Page 9 of 16
  injury of left shoulder and upper arm
 neck and nerve injury and trauma
 injury of abdomen
 displaced fracture of medial phalanx of left little finger
 injury of right ankle
 injury of left shoulder and upper arm
 injury of head
 pain in finger(s)
 other intervertebral, lumbar region trauma
 major depressive disorder, single episode
 cervicalgia
 P.T.S.D.
 connective tissue and disc stenosis of intervertebral foramina of cervical region

60. Defendant Lawrence’s negligent acts and omissions while preparing and

while flying into Samantha was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries, making Defendant

Lawrence liable for the damages described herein.

61. Defendant Lawrence had a duty to confirm that all work and inspections

of the airplane were done properly, which he failed to do.

62. Pilot Lawrence's act of attempting to fly the airplane without the proper

inspections and maintenance manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a

disregard of, the rights of others, including the Plaintiffs.

63. John Doe Repairman had a duty to properly replace and install the fuel

line and to properly make the necessary repairs on the airplane.

64. It is believed that defendant Lawrence paid John Doe Repairman to work

on the airplane fuel line and to do other work on the airplane not long before the accident.

Page 10 of 16
 65. John Doe Repairman worked on the airplane while the aircraft was parked

at the Ogden-Hinckley Airport, in Ogden, Utah, Weber County, between the time Lawrence

purchased the airplane and the time of the accident.

66. John Doe Repairman breached the duty of care by failing to properly make

the required repairs, which included the installation and work on the airplane fuel system.

67. John Doe Repairman committed negligent acts and omissions while

working on the airplane.

68. John Doe Repairman's negligent acts and omissions were a proximate

cause of the accident and Plaintiffs' injuries specified in this complaint.

69. Defendant pilot Lawrence and John Doe Repairman are both liable for

Plaintiffs' damages in an amount and percentage to be determined and proven at trial.

70. John Doe Inspector had a duty to properly inspect the airplane pursuant to

Federal Aviation Requirement.

71. John Doe Inspector breached the applicable duty of care by failing to

properly inspect the airplane, which includes, among other things, failing to conduct a proper

annual inspection.

72. John Doe Inspector failed to realize the airplane was not airworthy, which

is a breach of duty.

73. John Doe Inspector's breach of duty was also another proximate cause of

Plaintiffs' injuries, making John Doe Inspector and defendant pilot Lawrence both liable for

Plaintiffs' damages in an amount and percentage to be determined and proven at trial.

Page 11 of 16
 74. The airplane crash was an accident which in the ordinary course of events,

would not have happened had the defendants used due care.

75. The airplane that struck the Plaintiffs' vehicle, causing the Plaintiffs'

injuries, was at the time of the accident under the management and control of the defendants.

76. Plaintiffs now demand an award of damages against each Defendant in the

amounts and percentages to be proven at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

~ INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ~

77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference those allegations contained in the

numbered paragraphs above.

78. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care, so as not to

negligently inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiffs.

79. Defendants breached their respective duties and were negligent in

inflicting severe emotional distress upon Plaintiffs as a result of the accident that led to Plaintiffs'

injuries, medical treatments, pain, and damages described above and below in this complaint.

80. Among other things, defendant Lawrence was negligent because he flew

or crash-landed his airplane into Plaintiffs' vehicle, which caused, among other things, the

serious accident and permanent physical injuries.

81. Samantha suffered extreme emotional distress at the time of the accident,

while being treated for the accident, and while experiencing the ongoing recovery from the

accident.

Page 12 of 16
 82. The airplane to vehicle collision was traumatic and scared Lawrence.

83. The airplane to vehicle collision was traumatic and scared Samantha.

84. Samantha has suffered from a post traumatic stress disorder (P.T.S.D.) as

a result of defendant Lawrence crashing into Samantha's vehicle, catching her vehicle on fire

with Samantha inside of the vehicle, and totaling the Sandoval vehicle.

85. Randy suffered extreme emotional distress upon learning of the accident,

while Samantha was being treated in the hospital, and while coping with the ongoing recovery

from the accident.

86. The accident and facts described in this Compliant induced severe

emotional distress upon both Plaintiffs.

87. The accident has subjected both plaintiffs to a severe economic hardship,

which has contributed to their emotional distress.

88. Samantha is suffering from a major depressive disorder, and is suffering

from a post traumatic stress disorder (P.T.S.D.), and is being treated for the severe emotional

distress, all caused by the accident.

89. Defendants' negligent acts listed above proximately caused the injuries

and emotional distress to Plaintiffs.

90. Based upon the foregoing, both Samantha and Randy are entitled to

recover reasonable damages from each Defendant for the negligent infliction of emotional

distress, in such reasonable amounts and percentages as may be determined at trial.

Page 13 of 16
 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above and pray for and

demand judgment against the defendants, up to the Tier 2 maximum amount of $300,000.00,

exclusive of fees and costs, as follows:

1. For all general or non-economic damages against defendants in sums to be

proven at trial, for both past and future circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

a. Pain and suffering caused by personal physical injuries;

b. Pain and suffering caused by medical procedures;

c. Emotional distress and P.T.S.D. treatment;

d. Disfigurement, incapacities, lost opportunities and enjoyment of life;

e. Other non-economic damages appropriate under the circumstances.

2. For all past and future special or economic damages in amounts to be

proven at trial, including but not limited to the following:

a. Past medical and incidental expenses, including physical therapy;

b. Future medical and incidental expenses, including physical therapy;

c. Past and future costs of household and personal assistance services;

d. Other economic damages appropriate under the circumstances;

e. All property damage, vehicle damage, towing expenses, vehicle rental

expenses.

Page 14 of 16
 3. For other economic and out-of-pocket damages, including the cost of

relocating the Plaintiffs, in an amount to be proven at trial and for damages for permanent

physical injuries and impairments.

4. For all lost wages, benefits, and accumulated leave and vacation time lost

as a result of the accident.

5. For the total amount of lost earning capacity caused by the accident.

6. For pre-judgment interest on the damages assessed by the verdict pursuant

to Utah Code Ann. ' 78B-5-824, costs of litigation, and attorney fees

under the appropriate circumstances.

7. For punitive damages as a result of the defendant pilot's knowing and

reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs in flying an airplane that

he knew or should have know as not airworthy.

8. For a ruling that the defendant pilot Lawrence is negligent and liable as a

matter of law for the accident involving an airplane he was piloting.

9. For a ruling that the Defendants' are 100% at fault for all of the Plaintiffs'

injuries.

10. For a determination and ruling that flying the airplane under the

circumstances described above constituted an abnormally dangerous

activity.

11. For the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine and an inference of

negligence on the part of defendants.

Page 15 of 16
 12. For further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the premises.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2018.

FULLER LAW OFFICE, LC

/s/ Robert J. Fuller

Plaintiff:
Samantha and Randy Sandoval
Roy, Utah
c/o Attorney for Plaintiff

Page 16 of 16