Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MARY COX
2001 Lansdowne Way
Silver Spring, MD 20910
and
WILLIAM COX, a
by and through
2001 Lansdowne
Silver Spring,
minor,
MARY COX, PARENT
Way
MD 20910
Civil No.:
and
RUSSELL COX, a
by and through
2001 Lansdowne
Silver Spring,
minor,
MARY COX, PARENT
Way
MD 20910
and
:
:
~ ~-P~ainti f fs,
COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiffs Mary Cox and her minor children, William
Cox, Russell Cox, and Emily Cox; by and through counsel, Alan S.
Albin; Loyd Byron Hopkins; and Loyd Byron Hopkins, P.C.; and says
to this Honorable Court as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about March 7, 1999, Plaintiff Mary Cox owned and
resided with her family (all three co-Plaintiffs) in a single-
ii.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
22.
24.
25.
The jury trial in the first litigation occurred November 26 November 27, 2001, before the Honorable Durke Thompson.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
COUNT I
(Negligence: Flood of December 8, 2001)
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT II
(Trespass to Land and Personal Property/Chattels:
Flood of December 8, 2001)
9
53.
These
55.
56.
57.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
i0
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT III
(Conversion: Flood of December 8, 2001)
58.
59.
60.
61.
63.
64.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered,
following Relief:
Judgment in favor of Mary Cox and against W.S.S.C. in the
amount of $i,000,000 (One Million Dollars) compensatory
damages, judgment in favor of William Cox in the amount
of $i,000,000.00 against W.S.S.C.; judgment in favor of
Russell Cox in the amount of $i,000,000.00 against
W.S.S.C.; and judgment in favor of Emily Cox in the
amount of $i,000,000.00 against W.S.S.C.
Punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000 (Five
Million Dollars) against Defendant, payable to Mary Cox,
William Cox, Russell Cox, and Emily Cox; plus costs, plus
interest from the date of judgment.
Equitable relief requiring Defendant to replace the
inadequate existing sewage system immediately so as to
prevent any future recurrences;
Such other and further Relief as may be just and proper.
COUNT IV
(Nuisance: Flood of December 8, 2001)
12
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
78.
79.
That the Plaintiff Mary Cox is the legal owner of the real
14
81.
Constitution.
82.
83.
84.
following Relief:
A.
Co
Do
COUNT VI
(Fraud: Flood of December 8, 2001)
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
92.
93.
95.
96.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT VIII
(Negligent Misrepresentation: Flood of Dec. 8, 2001)
18
105.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
COUNT IX
(Negligence: Flood of September 5, 2002)
106. The allegations of all prior paragraphs are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
107. That W.S.S.C. had a duty to reasonably construct, inspect, and
maintain its sewage system and piping.
108. That W.S.S.C. unreasonably failed to adequately construct,
inspect, and maintain its sewage system so as to avoid the
risk of unreasonable harm, specifically sewage floods, to
residents hooked up to the system, in particular, the
Plaintiff.
109. That the Defendant has conclusively admitted liability in
negligence for any floods from its system onto the Cox
premises, pursuant to the prior litigation, and is bound by
and collaterally estopped to deny those admissions.
ii0. That as a direct and proxim@t~ result of W.S.S.C.s breach of
its duties, Plaintiffs were damaged; said damages including
loss of personal property, damage to real property, diminution
and/or total loss of market value of the real property, loss
of the use and enjoyment of all or part of the real and
personal property, inconvenience, non-economic damages
including: actual exposure to raw sewage, sewage residue,
mold, and mildew; and due to Plaintiffs fear for their safety
from infection and contamination due to exposure to biological
wastes and other hazardous materials, and Plaintiff was
otherwise damaged.
Iii. That the injuries to Plaintiffs were solely the fault of
Defendant and not due to any fault on the part of Plaintiffs.
112. That Defendant had actual knowledge of the defects in its
system no later than 1988 or at the latest January 1997; that
no later than January 1997, it had actual knowledge of the
fact that repairs needed to be made to avoid future flooding
2O
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT X
(Trespass to Land and Personal Property/Chattels:
Flood of September 5, 2002)
118. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
119. That Defendant W.S.S.C. negligently and/or intentionally
entered upon the Plaintiffs property, as hereinbefore
described; by permitting its raw sewage wastes to enter upon
Plaintiffs property, as hereinbefore described; and that
said entry was unauthorized.
120. That W.S.S.C. was conclusively held liable and/or admitted
its liability in trespass, during the first litigation, to
Cox for sewage floods from its system onto her premises.
These admissions and holdings are binding and conclusive on
the issue of trespass liability, and W.S.S.C. is estopped to
22
deny them.
121.
122.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
Co
Do
COUNT XI
(Conversion: Flood of September 5, 2002)
125.
126.
129.
130.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XII
(Nuisance: Flood of September 5, 2002)
132. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
133.
134.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief :
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XIII
(Inverse Condemnation: Flood of September 5, 2002)
145. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
146. That the Plaintiff Mary Cox is the legal owner of the real
property, and that her children, the co-Plaintiffs, had
possessory and equitable interests as residents of that
property and as family members and beneficiaries of Mary
27
148.
149.
150.
151.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief :
A.
Do
COUNT XIV
(Fraud: Flood of September 5, 2002)
153.
154. That Defendant since 1988, via its agents, employees, and
representatives, to the present time, has made numerous and
repeated false and/or misleading representations and/or nondisclosures to the Plaintiffs, Mary Cox and family,
concerning the physical condition of its sewage system; as
to the causes of the repeated sewage floods on Plaintiffs
premises; as to Defendants state of factual knowledge
concerning its own responsibility for the repeated sewage
floods; as to the adequacy of its purported efforts to
remedy the circumstances which Defendant claimed were
causative of the sewage floods; on each occasion, as to
whether Defendant had in fact actually adequately identified
and corrected the conditions causing the sewage floods; and
as to Defendants understanding of the chances or
probability of the risk of continuing incidents of sewage
flooding from its system onto Plaintiffs premises, in the
future.
155. That the falsity of these various representations were known
to the Defendant at the time the representations were made.
156.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief :
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XV
(Misrepresentation: Flood of September 5, 2002)
160.
163.
166.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief :
A.
B.
C.
D.
proper.
COUNT XVI
(Negligent Misrepresentation: Flood of September 5, 2002)
167. The contents of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
168. That Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs, and
negligently asserted a series of false statements as
hereinbefore described.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief :
A.
B.
COUNT XVII
(Breach of Contract: Flood of December 8, 2001)
174.
177.
178.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered,
following Relief:
33
Ao
So
Co
Do
COUNT XVIII
(Breach of Contract: Flood of September 5, 2002)
181.
185.
186.
187.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XIX
(Violations of Article 29, MD Code Ann., as to
Floods of December 8, 2001 and September 5, 2002)
188. The contents of all preceding paragraphs are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
189.
hook-up.
192.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XX
(Comprehensive Environmental Compensation and Liability Act:
Flood of December 8, 2001, and September 5, 2002)
197. The contents of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
198. That W.S.S.C. caused or failed to prevent sewage floods from
its system into the Cox home on two occasions as noted about,
December 8, 2001, and September 5, 2002.
199.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
COUNT XXI
(Violation of Takings Provision of 5th Amendment
U.S. Constitution, and 14th Amendment Due Process Clause)
206.
207. That the acts of W.S.S.C., pursuant to Art. 29, MD Code Ann.,
and otherwise, with respect to the Plaintiffs, as hereinbefore
described, including but not limited to the flooding incidents
of Dec. 8, 2001 and Sept. 5, 2002, constitute an unlawful
governmental "taking" of the Cox familys property, without
just compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment, U.S.
Constitution.
208. That said acts of W.S.S.C. also violated Amendment 14, U.S.
Constitution, Due Process Clause, in denying the Plaintiffs
due process of law.
209. That as a result of WoS.S.C.s violations of the U.S.
Constitution, the Cox family suffered damages, as hereinbefore
described.
210.
38
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XXII
(Violations of Maryland State Constitution and Maryland
Declaration of Rights: Eminent Domain, Due Process, Etc.)
211.
216. That W.S.S.C. acted with actual malice and evil intent.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XXIII
(Violations of MD Code Ann., "Environment" Article)
217. The contents of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
218. That W.S.S.C. caused or failed to prevent sewage floods from
its system into the Cox home on two occasions as noted about,
December 8, 2001, and September 5, 2002.
219. That raw sewage is hazardous to life and health, is in itself
toxic and hazardous; and contains toxic or hazardous
materials, such as biological wastes, E. Coli, cholera, and
4O
221.
222.
223.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
COUNT XXIV
(Violation of Settlement Agreement, Consent Decree/Order,
and/or Other Agreement With State or Federal Regulatory Agencies)
226. The contents of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
227. That upon information and belief, W.S.S.C. has entered into
one or more settlement agreements; consent decrees and/or
orders; and/or other binding agreement or agreements,
howsoever described, with one or more agencies of state,
federal, or local governments; governing W.S.S.C.s liability
for sewage releases from its system into the surrounding
environment, including but not limited to residences,
including that of Mary Cox and her family.
228. That at the present time, the details of any such settlement
agreement or agreements are unknown, as governed by
confidentiality requirements, not generally disclosed to the
public, and which have not yet been specifically disclosed to
Plaintiffs, but are available via the discovery process.
229. That the Plaintiffs are intended and/or third-party
beneficiaries of any such settlement agreements, consent
orders, etc.
230.
That agencies with which W.S.S.C. may have entered into one or
more such binding agreements include, but may not be limited
to, the Maryland State Department of Environmental Protection
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
231.
232.
233. That W.S.S.C. acted with actual malice and evil intent.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
COUNT XXV
(Violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983)
234. The contents of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
235. That the acts of W.S.S.C., as hereinbefore described, deprived
the Plaintiffs of their right to Due Process of Law pursuant
to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and deprived
the Plaintiffs of their right not to be deprived of their
property without just compensation, under the 5thAmendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
236.
That the Plaintiffs were also entitled, under the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not to
be subject to W.S.S.C.s tortious conduct enumerated above,
including the torts of: fraud, negligence, trespass,
43
240.
That W.S.S.C. acted with actual malice and with evil motive.
Relief Requested
Wherefore, the premises considered, Plaintiffs request the
following Relief:
A.
B.
C.
D.
44
Respectfully submitted,
k~/
45