The Scottsdale City Council has authorized the city attorney to defend the city in a lawsuit filed by Chromed In Hollywood Inc., which owned the Learjet 35A involved in a Feb. 10, 2025, accident at Scottsdale Airport. The council item was approved as part of the May 5 consent agenda, with no discussion or public comment during the meeting.
The suit alleges the airport allowed a Gulfstream G200 to be positioned in a designated object-free area, contributing to the collision after the Learjet departed the runway during landing.
The crash killed the Learjet’s pilot and injured others on board.
The company bringing the suit, originally filed in February, is tied to Mötley Crüe frontman Vince Neil, who was not on board at the time of the accident. The case names the city of Scottsdale, Scottsdale Airport and Southwest Jet Center LLC as defendants.
A passenger who survived the accident has also sued the city and other parties, alleging negligence related to aircraft positioning and airport operations.
“A reasonable municipality prevents collisions between planes by ensuring that parked planes are kept at a reasonably safe distance from the airport’s runway and taxiways,” that complaint says.
The NTSB’s preliminary report found the Learjet touched down with full flaps, entered a left-wing-low attitude, departed the runway surface and struck the parked Gulfstream. In October, the NTSB issued an urgent recommendation involving Learjet landing gear assemblies after investigators found the aircraft’s left main landing gear separated from the wing structure following an incorrectly installed retaining bolt.
This lawsuit should have been thrown out of court.
On what legal theory do you base your opinion?
Makes me wonder if all these plaintiffs are using the same idiotic ambulance chasing law firm?
Why aren’t. They suing the maintenance shop that installed the landing gear bolt incorrectly that lead to the gear collapse? Not deep enough pockets I guess.
This is like me having a blow out on my car, careening into an another car parked in a driveway and suing them for parking a their car too close to the road.
I hope the city sues the plaintiffs or law firm for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Incredible that you can sue someone for parking your aircraft 600 yards away from an active runway, a landing aircraft hits your parked aircraft on a tarmac, after recklessly crossing 600 yards of non-runway pavement and gravel…hits your parked aircraft, your aircraft is damaged and somehow it’s your fault! The people who are at fault (Learjet maintenance), are innocent? The parked aircraft owners should be suing the surviving passenger for living with half a brain, and the Learjet maintenance team for incompetence.
What a frivolous lawsuit! Guess the city has deeper pockets than the maintenance company that installed the bolt incorrectly. Shameful
Agree. I’m guessing some “smart” lawyer seized by the fact that it was parked in a pen undesignated spot. So, what if it was under tow when struck?
Complete nonsense - ambulance chasing.
The GA ramps at KSDL are all well outside the KSDL RWY 3/21 RSA. Look it up.
“… after investigators found the aircraft’s left main landing gear separated from the wing structure following an incorrectly installed retaining bolt.”
This is the only part of the story that is relevant to what lead to the fatality.
There is a reason, very well illustrated here, why areas must be free of obstacles. The pilot is dead because of the violation stated “city’s airport was negligent by allowing a Gulfstream G200 to be positioned in a designated object-free area, which contributed to the collision after the Learjet departed the runway during landing, killing its pilot and injuring others.” Gear collapses and break failures for all sorts of reasons are a known risk and are mitigated by instituting measures to reduce potential harm in an incident. There would be no death and possibly no injuries if the G200 wasn’t there and the investigation would be only on the incorrectly installed bolt. The city will loose this suit.