Esterline, Armtec responds to filing by victim of 2018 explosion

— By TAMMY FRAZIER

Managing editor

The “respondents” in a legal motion related to the injury of a man involved in a blast at Esterline in December of 2018 have responded to the request of the man and his family, according to court documents.

Aaron Brownlee and his wife, Mary, have filed a petition of declaratory judgment in the circuit court of Ouachita County.

The court document is titled: Aaron Brownlee and Mary Brownlee vs. Esterline Technologies Corporation, Armtec Countermeasures Co., and Charles King.

Brownlee was seriously injured in a blast at Esterline on Dec. 18, 2018. The recently-filed petition states that he “suffered multiple fractured bones, burns, and other serious injuries requiring multiple surgeries, including the amputation of a leg, and causing Aaron to remain continuously hospitalized in serious condition from then until now.”

A filing by attorneys on behalf of Aaron Brownlee and his family was made in mid-February and states that “Armtec was a subsidiary of Esterline at the time of the explosion; Armtec was licensed with the Arkansas Secretary of State to conduct business in Arkansas, but Esterline was not; Armtec was a party to the lease agreement to rent the premises where the explosion occurred, but Esterline was not; and Armtec was identified on Aaron’s 2018 W-2 as Aaron’s employer, but Esterline was not. As such, Esterline may be a non-employer of Aaron and among the parties subject to suit in tort.”

The respondents of the filing had declined requests by the attorneys representing Brownlee and his family, states the filing. However, on March 12, Esterline Technologies, Armtec countermeasures Co. and Charles King filed a “response to petition for preliminary injunction.

In the filing by Brownlee and his family earlier this month, they stated that they want access to the “root cause analyses and other investigations to determine the cause of the explosion, with the exception of allowing a representative of the Brownlees to photograph the damaged building and machine involved in the explosion.”

The family requested to photograph the building and machine on Jan. 21 of this year, which was more than a month after the explosion, the court documents show, and was “after all the debris and materials involved in the explosion had been removed, and after the machine had been moved to a nearby facility.”

Brownlee, his family and attorneys state in the filing that they do not have enough information about the persons, vendors, customers, contractors and companies involved in the work that was being done at the time of the blast, “legal relations among those persons and companies; contracts, requirements and duties under which the work was being performed; paper and digital records regarding the work;” and debris and materials that were part of the blast but have been removed and, presumably, analyzed.

They also want “photos or videos showing the site and machine immediately after the explosion and before they were cleaned up; witness and witness interviews; site inspections, investigations...” and any other information relative to the incident, states the document.

The filing shows that the Brownlees and their attorneys state that they “cannot reasonably be expected to further analyze the explosion and is cause or determine the legally-responsible parties without having benefit of the above-discussed information, which the respondents decline to provide.”

In the filing by the respondents on March 12, it states that “Petitioners’ counsel and his photographer have inspected and photographed the area and inspected the equipment. In the nearly three months since the incident, Armtec has offered several times to accommodate Petitioners’ counsel for further inspection and evaluation by his expert. Counsel has declined.

“Instead, Petitioners request the Court to enter an order that requires Respondents to ‘preserve all evidence and not remove the damaged interior structures of the building where the explosion occurred.’ As to the request that this damaged and structurally unsound building be maintained until Petitioners’ counsel decides if he wants to undertake further inspection. Petitioners have failed to meet the standard for granting such an extraordinary result as set forth in Rule 65 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.”

The company goes on to state in the filing that the court must determine if “irreparable harm will result in the absence of an injunction or restraining order, and whether the moving party has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.”

The respondents stated that they hope “the petition for preliminary injunction be denied, for their costs and attorney’s fees and for all other proper relief to which they are entitled.

The Camden News will relate other filings and responses as they appear in court documents.

Upcoming Events