In re Ethiopian Airlines Flight Et 302 Crash

675 F.Supp.3d 879

IN RE: ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES FLIGHT ET 302 CRASH

Case No. 19 C 2170 (Consolidated)

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Signed May 30, 2023

Ricardo Manoel Martinez-Cid, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL, Steven C. Marks, Dayron Silverio, Pro Hac Vice, Kristina Marie Infante, Pro Hac Vice, Podhurst Orseck, PA, Miami, FL, Andrew T. Hays, Sarah Elizabeth Buck, Hays Firm LLC, Chicago, IL, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL, Nabilah A. Hossain, Pro Hac Vice, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, Stephen Allan Saltzburg, Washington, DC, for Huguette Debets.

Joseph A. Power, Jr., Powers, Rogers & Smith, Chicago, IL, Kathryn Lynn Conway, Power Rogers, LLP, Chicago, IL, Nabilah A. Hossain, Pro Hac Vice, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, for Helena Yonatan Zerihun.

Nabilah A. Hossain, Pro Hac Vice, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, for Astrid Tendis-Knely.

Nabilah A. Hossain, Pro Hac Vice, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, Bradley M. Cosgrove, Kevin P. Durkin, Robert A. Clifford, Tracy A. Brammeier, Yvette Colette Loizon, John Vasilios Kalantzis, Joseph Thomas Murphy, Sarah F. King, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Tomra Vecere.

Arturo J. Gonzalez, Arturo J. Gonzalez P.C., Houston, TX, Hamilton George Rucker, Pro Hac Vice, Rucker Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Nemwel Mbicha Nyagwansa.

David Ian Katzman, Pro Hac Vice, Katzman, Lampert & Stoll, PLLC, Rochester, MI, for Anthony P. Janik.

Bradley M. Cosgrove, Yvette Colette Loizon, Robert A. Clifford, Joseph Thomas Murphy, Sarah F. King, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Bettina Eigner, Isabella Eigner, Wolfgang Plieschnegger, Gottfried Schietz, Renate Schietz, Michael Schietz, Beza Alemu, Meseret Alemu, Tsehay Alemu, Fetlework Alemu, Birhane Alemu, Abraham Chalachew, Samrawit Chalachew, Yewendatir Chalachew, Tigist Chalachew, Frewoini Haile, Yeabsira Chalachew, Girmaye Delessa Ashagrie, Shetaye Girmaye Delessa, Mayawe Bayihe Demissie, Virendra Shatrughna Dixit, Parindaben Virendra Dixit, Arpitkumar Virendrabhai Dixit, Ahmed Lotfy, Amr Lotfy, Zhuhu Gao, Sergey Aleksandrovich Polyakov, Elena Viktorovna Anokhina, Nadezhda Alekseevna Vyalikova, Gulshan Sultanali Merani, Naheed Noormohamed, Yasmin Ameen Noormohamed, Aleema Noormohamed, Jose Dalmau Fames, Marc Dalmau Sayol, Asuncion Sayol Palomera, Josep Antoni Dalmau Sayol.

Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Aregashe Tesfaye, Feisal Abdulkadir Egal.

Joseph Thomas Murphy, Sarah F. King, Yvette Colette Loizon, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Wei Xiong.

Yvette Colette Loizon, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Yang Mei.

Todd A. Smith, Smith LaCien, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Sebastien Barranger.

Mary Schiavo, Motley Rice LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, for Silke Buhr, Camilla

Nykvist, Noa Hodede, Jean E. Burgess, Wusheng Zhou, Joan Vincent.

Matthew J. Piers, Charles David Wysong, Margaret Emily Truesdale, Mark S. Dym, Mark Burton Weiner, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Alain Lacroix, Dominique Lacroix.

Bradley M. Cosgrove, Robert A. Clifford, Joseph Thomas Murphy, Sarah F. King, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Araceli Martinez Docampo, Antonio Martinez Rial, Maria de la Paz Martinez Docampo, Manuela Docampo Sotelo, Juan Antonio Martinez Docampo, Catherine Berthet, Michaela Sonnleitner.

Clay Robbins, III, Wisner Baum LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Eyasu Teshome.

Mark Lindquist, Mark Lindquist Law, Tacoma, WA, Austin William Bartlett, BartlettChen LLC, Chicago, IL, for Amie Belanger.

Brian Aris Kobiero, Houston, TX, Pro Se.

Patrick Mwaniki, Pro Se.

Nagat Tawfik Ahmed, Pro Se.

Manal Hussein Eissa, Pro Se.

Alain Lacroix, Pro Se.

Dominique Lacroix, Pro Se.

Vincenzo Ananda Tusa, Pro Se.

Andrea Govinda Tusa, Pro Se.

Hans Joachim Feigl, Pro Se.

Sieglinde Rink-Feigl, Pro Se.

Elena Degregorio, Pro Se.

Alessandro DeGregorio, Pro Se.

Mark Pegram, Pro Se.

Mahelet Hailemariam Seifu, Pro Se.

Fasika Mulu, Pro Se.

Qamar Adbullahi Moalin, Pro Se.

Dan K. Webb, Brian Joseph Nisbet, Christopher B. Essig, Julia M. Johnson, Linda T. Coberly, Matthew William Francis Poplawski, Karalena Margaret Guerrieri, Samuel Mack Zuidema, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, Daniel Thomas Burley, Jonathan R. Buck, Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago, IL, Andrew Tauber, Pro Hac Vice, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, Christopher Martin Ledford, Mack Harrison Shultz, Jr., Michael E. Scoville, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Sandra Edwards, Winston & Strawn/Chicago, San Francisco, CA, for The Boeing, Co.

Garrett Joseph Fitzpatrick, Pro Hac Vice, Fitzpatrick & Hunt, Pagano, Aubert, LLP, New York, NY, Lisa Bradley, Nicholas C. Bart, Shane Brian Nichols, Fitzpatrick & Hunt, Pagano, Aubert, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Rosemount Aerospace, Inc.

Lisa Bradley, Nicholas C. Bart, Shane Brian Nichols, Fitzpatrick & Hunt, Pagano, Aubert, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Nicholas C. Bart, Shane Brian Nichols, Fitzpatrick & Hunt, Pagano, Aubert, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation.

Adrian M. Vuckovich, Kathryne R. Hayes, Collins Bargione & Vuckovich, Chicago, IL, for Monica Ribbeck, Manuel von Ribbeck.

ORDER

JORGE ALONSO, United States District Judge

For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion to enforce the stipulation [1565] is denied. Defendant Boeing's motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument about passengers' alleged pain and suffering before impact [1597] is denied. Boeing's motion in limine to exclude speculative testimony regarding whether passengers experienced conscious pain and suffering on impact [1593] is granted. The Court reserves ruling on the remaining motions for now. To the extent that this ruling changes the parties' positions as to any of the remaining motions, they should notify the Court promptly in a joint status report.

STATEMENT

Pending before the Court are numerous motions in limine and Daubert motions filed by parties on both sides in advance of the upcoming June 20, 2023 trial date. The Court heard argument on a subset of these motions on May 23, 2023, and a final pretrial conference is set for June 5, 2023. Based on the written briefing and oral argument, the Court makes this limited written ruling in hopes of streamlining later proceedings by resolving a dispute between the parties about the applicable substantive law. The issue, raised most directly in defendants' motion in limine #7 (ECF No. 1597) but lurking in the background of a number of motions, is whether plaintiffs can recover for emotional distress that their decedents suffered during the flight prior to suffering any physical injury.

Plaintiffs assert claims of negligence sounding in products liability against Boeing under two Illinois statutes: the Wrongful Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/2, and the Survival Act, 755 ILCS 5/27-6. In motion in limine #7, Boeing argues that evidence of pre-impact fright and terror should be excluded because it is not relevant to plaintiffs' claims under either statute. Boeing argues that evidence of pre-impact fright and terror is not relevant to the survival claim because Illinois law provides that survival damages are only available for the conscious pain and suffering flowing from the passengers' injuries, and the evidence tends to show that the passengers had no time to experience conscious pain and suffering after injury because they died immediately upon impact. And Boeing explains that such evidence is not relevant to the wrongful death claim, either, because that claim concerns the grief and sorrow of plaintiffs, who are not the passengers but the passengers' surviving family members and beneficiaries, and their grief and sorrow is established by evidence of what happened in the beneficiaries' lives, rather than in the decedent passengers' lives.

For the following reasons, the Court rules that damages for pre-impact emotional distress are available to plaintiffs in this case, to the extent that they are able to prove them at trial, regardless of whether they can prove a pre-impact physical injury. Based on this conclusion, defendant's motion in limine #7 is denied.

I. Effect of Stipulation

As an initial matter, plaintiffs argue that the Court need not reach the merits of this issue because the terms of Boeing's stipulation to liability prevent Boeing from arguing that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress. Boeing stipulated to "its liability for the compensatory damages proximately caused by the ET 302 accident" and that "the measure and elements of Plaintiffs' damages are to be determined under Illinois law." (Agreed Stipulation of the Parties at 1, ECF No. 1217-1.) Boeing agreed that plaintiffs are "entitled to recover . . . the full measure of damages permitted under Illinois law and pursuant to the elements of recoverable damages under Illinois law." (Id. at 3, ¶ B.1.) And it agreed that plaintiffs would be "permitted to introduce all relevant and admissible evidence at trial regarding the decedents and their beneficiaries' alleged compensatory damages," which "may include evidence of . . . the pre-impact, pre-death pain and suffering and emotional distress of the decedent as permitted under Illinois law." (Id. at 5, ¶ D.4.)

The Court does not interpret these provisions the way plaintiffs do. Based on the plain language, considering the stipulation as a whole and in its full context, the Court interprets these provisions to mean that Boeing agreed to pay whatever damages are available under Illinois law, in amounts to be determined and based on rulings to be made in later proceedings on damages. The Court does not read the stipulation to prevent Boeing from making any argument about what damages are or are not available under Illinois law.

The best argument plaintiffs make to the contrary is a textual one based on the language of paragraph D.4, which states that the "relevant and...