IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION PARTIES

Transcription

1 //0 :: AM CV IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH 0 DENNIS DELANO, Plaintiff, vs. THE BRICKMAN GROUP LTD, LLC, a Delaware corporation Defendant. Case No. COMPLAINT- NEGLIGENCE, PERSONAL INJURY, STATUTORY VIOLATIONS (NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION PRAYER - $, NATURE OF THE ACTION Plaintiff brings an action for injuries he suffered as a result of being contaminated by a pesticide / herbicide sprayed by Defendant. PARTIES Plaintiff is a resident of Multnomah County, Oregon. /// COMPLAINT - 0 NE Holladay Street #00 Portland OR T: 0..0 F: 0..0

2 0 0 Defendant is a commercial operating company for landscape services and enhancement services in several states whose primary place of business is Research Boulevard, Suite 00, Rockville, Maryland and which operates a facility in Vancouver, Washington. FACTS On or about July, 0, plaintiff was a customer at the Starbucks coffee house located at the southeast corner of the Wood Village Shopping Center, NE rd Avenue and Park Lane, Wood Village, Multnomah County, Oregon and was sitting at an outside table. Defendant s agent or employee believed to be Jose L. Aldaco used a backpack sprayer to intentionally apply pesticide products to landscaped ornamental grounds at the Wood Village Shopping Center including the Starbucks coffee house, causing it to cling to Plaintiff s body and to be inhaled by Plaintiff causing injuries as hereafter set forth. The pesticides Mr. Aldaco applied included Agri Star Crossroad herbicide and/or glyphosate herbicide. The Defendant s Brickman-Vancouver facility did not have a commercial pesticide operator s license to operate at the Starbucks location. The pesticides / herbicides used by Defendant were not labeled for use at the Starbucks facility. Mr. Aldaca was not licensed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture to spray pesticides / herbicides. /// /// COMPLAINT - 0 NE Holladay Street #00 Portland OR T: 0..0 F: 0..0

3 0 0 Defendant s pesticide application record for the Starbucks application did not identify all of the pesticide products that were applied, and lacked sufficient information on the time of day, the type of equipment used, and the location of the area treated. 0 As a direct result of the negligence and statutory violation of the Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered: severe coughing, insomnia, labored breathing, and exhaustion. Plaintiff s injuries may be permanent in nature and he has experienced and will continue to experience pain, discomfort, inconvenience, disability, and loss of ability to engage in her normal routine and activities, all to his non-economic damage in the sum of $0, As a direct result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff incurred economic damage for medical bills estimated at $, and to be proven at trial. As a direct result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff has incurred loss of wage earning capacity in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs - as though fully set forth herein. Defendant was negligent in the following respects: a. The Defendant s Brickman-Vancouver facility did not have a commercial pesticide operator s license to operate at the Starbucks location. b. The pesticides / herbicides used by Defendant were not labeled for use at the Starbucks facility. c. Mr. Aldaca was not licensed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture to spray COMPLAINT - 0 NE Holladay Street #00 Portland OR T: 0..0 F: 0..0

4 0 0 pesticides / herbicides. d. Defendant s pesticide application record for the Starbucks application did not identify all of the pesticide products that were applied, and lacked sufficient information on the time of day, the type of equipment used, and the location of the area treated. e. Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff that toxic pesticide / herbicide would be sprayed in his vicinity. f. Defendant failed to maintain a lookout for the presence of Plaintiff. g. Defendant caused the toxic pesticide / herbicide to contaminate Plaintiff. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF STATUTORY VIOLATION Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs - above as if fully set forth at length herein. Defendant violated ORS.( which states a person may not as a pesticide operator, engage in the business of, or represent or advertise as being in the business of, applying pesticides upon the land or property of another, without first obtaining and maintaining a pesticide operator s license. The operator also may not engage in a class of pesticide application business that is not specifically authorized by license issued by the State Department of Agriculture. The operator also may not employ or use any person to apply or spray pesticides who is not a licensed pesticide applicator or pesticide trainee. Defendant violated ORS.( which states a person may not as a pesticide applicator or operator, intentionally or willfully apply or use a worthless pesticide or any pesticide inconsistent with its labeling, or as a pesticide consultant or dealer, recommend or distribute such pesticides. COMPLAINT - 0 NE Holladay Street #00 Portland OR T: 0..0 F: 0..0

5 0 0 Defendant violated ORS.( which states a person may not refuse or neglect to prepare and maintain records required to be kept by the provisions of this chapter. Defendant s pesticide application was made onto the property of another; it was not owned or controlled by Defendant. It was thus subject to the record keeping requirements of ORS. in the following manner: a. Failing to accurately or sufficiently identify all of the pesticide products used in contrary to ORS.((e which required records to include the trade name and the strength of such pesticides. b. Failing to completely document the time of day and duration of the pesticide application is contrary to ORS.( which requires records to include the date and approximate time of application. c. Failing to record equipment or device used to make the application is contrary to ORS.((h which requires records to include the summary information of equipment, device or apparatus used. d. Failing to adequately identify the location and extent of the treated area is contrary to ORS.((b, which requires records to include the approximate location of the land or property on which the pesticide was applied. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF PUNITIVE DAMAGES Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs - as though fully set forth herein. 0 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the complaint to seek damages for the willful, wanton and reckless conduct of the Defendant. COMPLAINT - 0 NE Holladay Street #00 Portland OR T: 0..0 F: 0..0

6 0 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:. For economic damages for medical expenses in excess of $,000, to be amended;. For economic damages for loss of wage earning capacity in an amount to be determined;. For non-economic damages in the sum of $0,000.00;. For plaintiff s costs and disbursements incurred herein;. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this th day of July, 0. By ADAM S. GAMBOA, OSB No. 00 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dennis Delano TRIAL ATTORNEY: ADAM S. GAMBOA 0 COMPLAINT - 0 NE Holladay Street #00 Portland OR T: 0..0 F: 0..0