STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

Transcription

1 STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND TERRY McINICK, JESS McINICK by his next Friend TERRY McINICK, and ALYSSA McINICK by her next friend TERRY McINICK, vs. Plaintiffs, Case No.: 12- -NO Hon. OAKLAND COUNTY, a Michigan municipal corporation, MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of OAKLAND COUNTY, and BILL CHRISTENSEN. Defendants. / REIFMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC Steven W. Reifman (P25208) Attorney for Plaintiffs 2000 Town Center Suite 1900 Southfield, Michigan (248) Fax: / There is no other civil action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this court nor has there been previously filed and dismissed after having been assigned to a judge. /s/steven W. Reifman Steven W. Reifman, Attorney for Plaintiffs COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TERRY McINICK, JESS McINICK by his next Friend TERRY McINICK, and ALYSSA McINICK by her next friend TERRY McINICK, all by and through Plaintiffs attorneys Steven W. Reifman of the Reifman Law Firm, PLLC, complaining against the above-named Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, either real or ostensible, respectfully represents unto this Honorable Court as follows: COUNT I NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE -1-

2 1. That Plaintiffs TERRY McINICK, JESS McINICK by his next Friend TERRY McINICK, and ALYSSA McINICK by her next friend TERRY McINICK, whose addresses are 455 E. Walton, Pontiac, MI have all times pertinent hereto been residents of the County of Oakland County, State of Michigan. 2. That Defendant OAKLAND COUNTY, (hereinafter Oakland County ) is a Michigan municipal Corporation with offices and jurisdiction in the County of Oakland, Michigan. 2.3 That MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, (hereinafter Bouchard ) individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the OAKLAND COUNTY, Resides in and does business in the County of Oakland, Michigan (hereinafter Oakland County 2.5 That BILL CHRISTENSEN, (hereinafter Christianson ) resides in the County of Oakland, Michigan, 3. That Defendant OAKLAND COUNTY is the owner and operator of a certain aircraft known as a helicopter (hereinafter Incident Helicopter ) which is used by Defendant Bouchard and the Sheriff s Department under his supervision as the duly elected Sheriff of the County of Oakland. 3.5 That said Incident Helicopter was operated by Defendant BILL CHRISTENSEN on or about August 18, 2012 at or about 10 pm in the City of Pontiac, County of Oakland, State of Michigan at or near the intersection of Woodward Avenue and Rayburn Street during the closing hours of the Woodward Dream Cruise. 4. That the Plaintiffs were peaceably socializing and going about their business on a certain lot (hereinafter Incident Lot ) during the period of the Woodward Dream Cruise. 5. That Defendant Christensen did operate the helicopter owned by the County of Oakland in a reckless and negligent fashion by flying over them at a low and illegal elevation such that the massive power of the rotary shaft of the helicopter caused such significant rotor wash as to cause rocks and stones to be thrown at great velocity, imperiling and causing great -2-

3 bodily and emotional harm to Plaintiffs, some of which are minors, as well as damage to personal property as indicated below Said Incident Helicopter also did cause damage to certain property that was lawfully and with authorization parked on the Incident Lot. The property, a 1971 Chevrolet El Camino motor vehicle (hereinafter the Show Car ) had a custom unique special paint job that was damaged by rocks and other debris caused by the rotor wash of the Incident Helicopter. That said Incident Helicopter was owned by Defendant Oakland County, under the control and supervision of Defendant Sheriff Bouchard and operated in a grossly negligent and reckless fashion by Defendant Christiansen. That said damage to the Show Car required the payment of $21, to replicate and repair pursuant to a fair and current estimate made by a competent craftsperson as well as $6,700 to clean and repair the engine and engine in that the Show Car also suffered mechanical damage due to the dust and rocks form the rotor wash. Further, damage was done to a certain Motor Home, that was on the Incident Lot and owned by Plaintiff Terry McInick. 6. That Defendant Christensen flew the helicopter below the height allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which height is established for the benefit of the public safety and in so doing, with no emergency or justification, was grossly negligent, then hovered at that level over the heads of Plaintiffs and their property for an extended period of time, causing great damage to person and property, to wit, literally picking up and throwing Plaintiffs Jess McInick and Alyssa McInich like ragdolls and causing them great bodily and emotional harm. Said gross negligence and negligence caused the minor plaintiffs great bodily harm and significant emotional trauma which has resulted in long term deleterious harm and post traumatic stress syndrome. Whereas Plaintiff Terry McInick suffered aggravation of an existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as well as great emotional harm that includes post traumatic stress disorder. -3-

4 7. The Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any aircraft, especially a helicopter with its rotor wash implications, from flying below 1000 feet which amounts Negligence Per Se on the part of Defendants herein. 8. That Plaintiff Terry McInick also owned and was using his motor home on the Incident Lot, and when the Incident Helicopter came so dangerously low it caused $9,700 in damage to said motor home. 9. That Defendant Brouchard s conduct in this action and in other actions in taking over the general policing in Pontiac, Michigan due to the demise of the Pontiac Police Department amounts to him carrying out his activities as if the City of Pontiac, Michigan was a police state. Assuming that somehow this action in flying the Incident Police Helicopter by the Oakland County Sheriff s Office may have had some legitimate police purpose, these actions amount to the use of excessive force and were in their very nature gross negligence as well as violations of Federal, State and Local policy. 10. That the injuries suffered to person and property were based upon violations of federal rules and regulations, thereby were violations of 42 USC That Plaintiff Terry McInick also suffered: a. Loss of income due to disability suffered from this incident; b. Expenses reasonably incurred for necessary services in lieu of those the injured Plaintiffs would have performed for the benefit of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs dependents; c. For all reasonable charges, unlimited in amount, for medical and/or rehabilitative expenses and hospital charges; d. Reasonable and necessary travel expenses to obtain medical care or attention. e. Reasonable and necessary attendant or nursing care. 11. That as a result of said incident, the Plaintiffs incurred expenses for: a. medical mileage; b. hospital and doctor related expenses related to the treatment of Plaintiffs; -4-

5 c. lost earnings; d. lost services, including household and other expenses which the Defendants are obligated to pay; e. attendant care services. 12. That although demand for payment of the same has been made, Defendants have unreasonably and unlawfully refused or neglected to reimburse the aforementioned costs and damages 13. That although reasonable proof has been supplied, the Defendants have failed or refused to reimburse Plaintiffs for their various ongoing damages. 14. That the amount in controversy herein exceeds the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) dollars and that declaratory and/or equitable relief is sought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the following relief: a. That this Court grant judgment against the Defendants in whatever amount Plaintiffs are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs and attorney. b. That the Court grant such further relief as is necessary and proper in the above cause. COUNT II GROSS NEGLIGENCE 15. That Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 as though fully alleged herein. 16. That the actions of Defendant Christensen as an individual amounted to Gross Negligence and were violations of MCL when Defendants conducted themselves in a manner so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result from breach of the aforementioned duties as Plaintiffs suffered the aforementioned injuries as a result of that Gross Negligence. 17. That Plaintiffs sustained personal injuries as a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence as herein alleged. -5-

6 18. That as a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant Christensen and the failure to properly supervise him by Defendant Bouchard, Plaintiffs, their agents, servants and/or employees, either real or ostensible, as aforesaid, the Plaintiffs: a. sustained severe bodily injuries which were painful, disabling, and necessitated medical care; b. suffered shock and emotional damage; c. sustained possible aggravation of pre-existing conditions and/or reactivation of dormant conditions; d. was and/or may continue to be unable to attend to her usual affairs and daily activities including, but not limited to, household chores, and personal needs; e. was unable to render services as formerly including, but not limited to, household chores, and personal needs; f. hampered said Plaintiffs in the enjoyment of the normal pursuit of life as formerly; g. sustained injuries that are permanent to the degree that Plaintiffs suffered a loss in ability to earn money as before, and will have impaired earning capacity in the future; h. will continue to have pain and suffering in the future and impairment and disabilities as well as permanency; i. suffered mental anguish; j. suffered fright; k. suffered from embarrassment and humiliation; l. suffered from a loss of enjoyment of life and/or hampered Plaintiffs in the enjoyment of the normal pursuit of life; m. sustained any and all hedonic damages, both past and future; n. sustained injuries that are permanent and Plaintiffs will continue to have said damages in the future; and/or o. sustained damages that are past and future; p. suffered excess economic damages, wage loss, and replacement services; q. sustained any other damages which are applicable and which are recoverable pursuant to statute, case law, and Michigan Court Rules. 19. That as a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Defendant Chrisensen and the failure to train and supervise him by Defendant Bouchard, and the resulting injuries to Plaintiffs, said Plaintiffs sustained serious injuries. 20. That the amount in controversy herein exceeds the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages in his favor and against the Defendant Insurance Companies, in whatever amount Plaintiffs are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs and attorney fees. -6-

7 COUNT III VIOLATION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 21. That Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully restated herein. 22. That Defendants did violate Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section of the General Operating and Flight Rules which specifically prohibit low-flying aircraft and provide that a minimum altitude of 1,000 feet is required over an congested area of a city, ie Pontiac, MI. 23. That while helicopters may fly at a lower height, they are required to be flown is such a fashion without hazard to persons or property on the surface. 24. That Defendants did violate this regulation and Plaintiffs, as a result of the violations of Federal Regulations, have incurred injuries and damages including but not limited to: Pain and suffering; Serious Impairment of Bodily Functions; Permanent Serious Disfigurement; Medical Bills and Expenses, past, present and future, and injury to valuable personal property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that they be awarded Judgments against Defendants in Plaintiffs favor in amounts in excess of $25, together with interest, costs and attorney fees and whatever further equitable relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/steven W. Reifman By: Steven W. Reifman (P25208) Attorneys for Plaintiff 2000 Town Center Suite 1900 Southfield, Michigan Dated: November 2,

8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL NOW COME the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, REIFMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC, hereby demands a trial by jury of the within cause. Respectfully submitted, /s/steven W. Reifman By: Steven W. Reifman (P25208) Attorneys for Plaintiff 2000 Town Center Suite 1900 Southfield, Michigan