Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*
*
STEPHEN PATRICK JANSON *
10426 Norwich Road *
Ocean City, Maryland 21842 *
*
PLAINTIFF *
* CIVIL ACTION NO: -------
vs. *
*
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL * ROB 1 0 CV 26 1 3
PRODUCTS, INC. *
726 rue Saint-Joseph *
Valcourt, Quebec *
Canada JOE 2LO *
*
and *
*
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL *
PRODUCTS, INC. *
Ski-Doo/Sea-Doo Division *
565 rue de la Montagne *
Valcourt, Quebec *
Canada JOE 2LO *
*
and *
*
BRP US, Incorporated *
10101 Science Drive *
Sturevant, Wisconsin 53177 *
*
SERVE ON: *
The Corporation Trust, Inc. *
351 West Camden Street *
Baltimore, Maryland 21201 *
*
DEFENDANTS. *
*
* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **

1
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 14

COMPLAINT WITH JURy DEMAND

Now comes the plaintiff, Stephen Patrick Janson, by and through his attorneys, Frederic

C. Heyman, Glenn E. Mintzer and Anthony J. Covacevich, and the Law Offices of Peter G.

Angelos, P.C, and for his causes of action against the defendants, Bombardier Recreational

Products, Inc., Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. Ski-Doo/Sea-Doo Division, and BRP US,

Inc., hereby states as follows:

NATURE OF TillS ACTION

This is a lawsuit for civil damages for negligence, strict liability and breach of express

and implied warranties.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. That the Plaintiff, Stephen Patrick Janson, is a United States citizen, a resident of the

State of Maryland.

2. That Defendant Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. (hereinafter "BRP") is a

corporation duly organized and existing in the country of Canada, with its principal place of

business at 726 rue Saint Joseph, Valcourt, Quebec, Canada JOE 2LO. Amongst numerous

interests, BRP is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and marketing, distributing, and

selling personal water crafts (hereinafter "PWC"). Said Defendant conducts regular, substantial

and continuous business in the State of Maryland, by engaging in the business of manufacturing,

marketing and distributing PWCs to the public, including those citizens ofthe State of Maryland,

including the designing, manufacturing, and marketing, distributing, and selling of a 2005 Sea

Doo Model RXT (Serial Number: YDV29570C505, State of Maryland Registration Number:

MD 1421 CA).

2
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 14

3. That Defendant Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., Ski-Doo/Sea-Doo Division

(hereinafter "BRP Sea Doo") is a corporation duly organized and existing in the country of

Canada, with its principal place of business at 565 rue de la Montagne, Valcourt, Quebec,

Canada JOE 2LO. Amongst numerous interests, BRP Sea Doo is in the business of designing,

manufacturing, and marketing, distributing, and selling personal water crafts. Said Defendant

conducts regular, substantial and continuous business in the State of Maryland, by engaging in

the business of manufacturing, marketing and distributing PWCs to the public, including those

citizens of the State of Maryland including the designing, manufacturing, and marketing,

distributing, and selling of a 2005 Sea Doo Model RXT (Serial Number: YDV29570C505, State

of Maryland Registration Number: MD 1421 CA).

4. That Defendant BRP US INC., ("BRP US"), the American supplier of the

Defendant BRP, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its

principal place of business located at 10101 Science Drive, Sturevant, Wisconsin 53177. Said

Defendant conducts regular, substantial and continuous business in the State of Maryland, by

engaging in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distributing PWCs to the public and

more particularly described herein.

5. That the jurisdiction of this Court is based on the diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C,

Section 1332, with venue in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391. The amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF ALL COUNTS

6. The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

3
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 4 of 14

7. That on or about September 24,2007, the Plaintiff was a passenger on board the

PWC described in paragraph 2 which was being operated by Andrew Dennis Johnson The PWC

was owned by Mr. Justin Stolba.

8. That at approximately 5:45 PM, Eastern Daylight Savings Time, the PWC was being

operated in waters off Worcester County, Isle of Wright Bay, Maryland The weather was clear.

9. That while riding as a passenger, sitting directly behind the operator, with by

necessity his legs spread wide around the PWC seat, the Plaintiff lost his grip and fell from the

rear of said PWC while it was in motion.

10. That with the Plaintiff s fall, he was violently struck in his rectal area by the jet

blast emanating from the PWC's jet nozzle.

11. That at the time of the incident, the PWC was being operated in a careful and

prudent manner, which was proper and consistent with its ordinary and intended use and purpose,

and the Plaintiff was exercising due care and caution for his own safety.

12. That the aforesaid incident has subjected the Plaintiff to great physical injury, severe

pain and suffering, emotional distress, severe disfigurement, fear and other damages including

but not limited past, present, and future medical expenses.

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE

13. The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

14. That prior to September 24,2007, and at all times herein relevant, the Defendants,

by and through their duly authorized agents, servants, employees and/or workmen, were

responsible for the designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, sales, and technical support

4
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 5 of 14

services for all owners and operators of the PWC, and were negligent in carrying out the

described business and responsibilities and failed to act within their duty of care in the following

respects:

a. Designed, fabricated, manufactured, sold, assembled, supplied and/or

delivered said PWC in a defective and/or unreasonably unsafe and/or dangerous

condition to the user or consumer, which caused, precipitated or facilitated the

injuries suffered by the Plaintiff and the traumatic occurrence described herein;

b. Failed to properly and adequately design and/or manufacture the PWC,

including the jet pump assembly of the PWC, including all component parts

thereof, to provide reasonable protection and safety to the operator and/or

passenger of the said PWC;

c. Designed, fabricated, manufactured, assembled, sold, supplied and/or

delivered the PWC with jet pump assembly which same knew, or should have

known, was unreasonably unsafe and/or dangerous and could cause significant

and catastrophic injuries to the operator and/or passenger of said PWC;

d. Designed, fabricated, manufactured, assembled, sold, supplied and/or

delivered the PWC without providing adequate and/or necessary safeguards

and/or reasonable jet pump assembly to protect the operator and/or passenger

during foreseeable uses of said PWC;

e. Intentionally withheld from the PWC a reasonably safe design, including

protections from the jet pump assembly although such systems and parts were

available in similar PWC's designed, manufactured, assembled, sold, supplied

5
Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 6 of 14

and/or delivered at the same or similar time by the Defendants and/or their

competitors in the PWC industry;

f. Failed to use due care under the circumstances;

g. Failed to adequately and properly warn operators and/or passengers of the

PWC about the foreseeable dangers of catastrophic injury given the jet pump

assembly and jet blast of said PWC;

h. Violated federal regulations, standards and statutes pertaining to the

obligations of consumer product to recall and make modifications to a product

after the manufacturer knows or should have known of a defective feature or

features in such product;

1. Failed to adequately and properly test the PWC in question to determine that

the PWC did not protect the operator from the jet pump assembly of such PWC,

and therefore, did not adequately protect the operator and/or passenger of the

PWC from foreseeable injury and harm;

J. Designed, fabricated, manufactured, assembled, sold, supplied and/or

delivered a poorly designed PWC with inadequate protection from the jet pump

assembly which caused the operator and/or passenger to be prone to striking their

pelvic area or be exposed to said jet blast when falling from the rear of the PWC,

thereby causing an unreasonable risk of harm to the operator and/or passenger of

suchPWC;

k. Failed to install a lanyard safety kill switch for the passenger riding on the

PWC;

6
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 7 of 14

1. Failed to design and install a passenger seat with a back support with or

without a break-off feature to kill the jet-pump.

m. Failed to provide adequate warning that if a passenger fell from the rear of the

PWC while not notifying the driver, the excessive force from the thrust of the

PWC engine could harm the Plaintiff;

n. Failed to provide the proper instruction regarding the proper method by

which to ride their PWC as a passenger;

o. Failed to have similar safety devices for passengers as are provided for

operators of a PWC;

p. Failed to provide seat handles which would prevent a passenger on the PWC

from falling off the rear of the PWC without alerting the operator;

q. Failed to provide a seat on the PWC with a design that would prevent the

Plaintiff from falling off the rear of the PWC in close proximity to the expelled

water from the output of the PWC engine;

r. Failed to adequately place any warning in a position that could be adequately

viewed by a passenger; and

s. Committed such other acts or omissions, constituting carelessness,

negligence, gross negligence and wilful, wanton and reckless conduct, as may

appear during the course of discovery procedures or as may be adduced at the trial

of this case.

15. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent acts and/or

omissions, the Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, a perineal

7
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 8 of 14

tear with rectal bleeding and required a colostomy; he underwent an anorectal monometry,

pudendal nerve testing and endoanal ultrasound, with an eventual takedown of the colostomy

approximately seven (7) months later. Furthermore, he will continue to suffer great physical

pain, physical discomfort, emotional distress, fear and other injuries and damages, including but

not limited to stool incontinence, with an ongoing concern that this condition will worsen as he

ages.

16. That as a further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent acts and/or

omissions, Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses in the past and will continue to incur future

medical expenses for the treatment of his injuries.

17. That as a further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent acts and or

omissions, Plaintiff incurred lost wages and suffered a permanent impairment to his future

earrnng power.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks judgment for compensatory damages in the amount of

five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) against the Defendants together with costs of litigation and

for any and all further relief this court deems just and proper, and further demands trial by jury of

all issues triable as of right by jury.

COUNT II - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

DESIGN, MANUFACTURING AND/OR WARNING DEFECTS

18. The Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference as if fully set forth in the above

paragraphs and further allege as follows:

19. The PWC designed, manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendants was placed

into the stream of commerce by these Defendants in a defective and/or in an unreasonably

8
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 9 of 14

dangerous condition in that the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with the

design, engineering, and function. It was substantially unchanged at the time of the incident and

was the proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries and damages.

20. Alternatively, the PWC designed, manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendants

was defective in design, engineering, or function, in that, when it was placed in the stream of

commerce, it was in an unreasonably dangerous condition, more dangerous than an ordinary

consumer would expect, it was substantially unchanged at the time of the incident and was the

proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries and damages.

21. The PWC designed, manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendants was defective

and/or in an unreasonably dangerous condition due to inadequate warning or instruction, and/or

inadequate placement of warning or instruction because the manufacturers knew or should have

known that the product created a risk of harm to consumers and these Defendants failed to

adequately warn of said risks. It was substantially unchanged at the time of the incident and was

the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages.

22. The PWC designed, manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendants was defective

due to inadequate warning and/or inadequate testing.

23. The PWC designed, manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendants was defective

due to inadequate post-marketing warning or instruction because, after the Defendants knew or

should have known of the risk of injury from the jet pump assembly and/or engine, they failed to

provide adequate warnings to users or consumers of the product and continued to promote the

product.

24. At the time the PWC left the possession ofthe Defendants and was purchased, the

9
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 10 of 14

Defendants:

a. had not adequately or properly tested the PWC for health hazards associated with

users/passengers exposure to the jet pump assembly and/or engine;

b. designed, manufactured, and/or sold the PWC that emitted harmful or potentially

harmful jet water without adequate protection from harm to the user; and

c. designed, manufactured, and/or sold the PWC that was defective in that

Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings to the public, purchasers, or users, including the

Plaintiff, Stephen Patrick Janson, of the dangerous or potentially hazardous nature of exposure to

the jet water being emitted by the PWC's jet pump assembly and/or engine; warnings which

could have prevented the damages as stated herein;

25. At the time the PWC left the Defendants possession the PWC was unreasonably

dangerous to the Plaintiff and the Defendants had a less dangerous alternative or modification,

which was economically feasible.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous

condition of the PWC due to the failure to warn, as manufactured and/or supplied by Defendants;

Plaintiff, Stephen Patrick Janson, has suffered injuries and damages as noted in paragraph 18

above.

27. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants actually knew ofthe defective nature of

their product as herein set forth and continued to design, manufacture, market and sell their

product so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of public health and safety.

Defendants' conduct exhibits such an entire want of care as to establish that their actions were a

result of evil motive, actual malice, and the conscious and deliberate disregard of foreseeable

10
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 11 of 14

harm to the Plaintiff, Stephen Patrick Janson.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks judgment for compensatory damages in the amount of

$5,000,000.00 against the Defendants together with costs of litigation and for any and all further

relief this court deems just and proper, and further demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of

right by jury.

COUNT III - BREACH OF IMPLIED AND EXPRESS WARRANTIES

28. The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

29. That by virtue of the operation ofthe PWC as described above, and all of the

business activities engaged in by the Defendants, that certain express and implied warranties of

merchantability and fitness for ordinary and intended use and purpose were made by the

aforementioned Defendants.

30. That by virtue of the activities of the Defendants as described above, and the

Defendants negligence in designing, manufacturing, testing, certifYing, marketing, warning

passengers and operators and selling the PWC, these Defendants breached their warranty of

merchantability and fitness for ordinary and intended use.

31. That as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of warranty of

merchantability and fitness for ordinary and intended use, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will

continue to suffer, great physical injury, pain, suffering, physical discomfort, emotional distress,

fear and other damages.

32. That as a further direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of warranty

of merchantability and fitness for ordinary and intended use, Plaintiffhas incurred medical

11
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 12 of 14

expenses in the past and will continue to incur future medical expenses for the treatment of his

InJurIes.

33. That as a further direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of warranty

of merchantability and fitness for ordinary and intended use, Plaintiff has incurred lost wages and

suffered a permanent impairment to his future earning power.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks judgment for compensatory damages in the amount of

$5,000,000.00 against the Defendants together with costs of litigation and for any and all further

relief this court deems just and proper, and further demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of

right by jury.

COUNT IV - PUNITIVE DAMAGES

34. The Plaintiff hereby reiterates and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

35. That the Defendants, by and through their agents, servants, workmen and/or

employees were guilty of reckless, wilful, wanton acts and omissions, which evidence a total and

conscious disregard for the safety of the Plaintiff and which justifies an award of punitive

damages and/or exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff seeks judgment for punitive damages in the amount of

$25,000,000.00 against the Defendants together with costs of litigation and for any and all further

relief this court deems just and proper, and further demands trial by jury of all issues triable as of

right by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

lsi Frederic C. Heyman

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos

12
Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 13 of 14

A Professional Corporation
100 N. Charles Street, 22nd Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Attorneys for Plaintiff
410-649-2051
BarNo.: 06013

lsi Glenn E. Mintzer

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos
A Professional Corporation
100 N. Charles Street, 22nd Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Attorneys for Plaintiff
410-649-2068
Bar No.: 26200

lsi Anthony J. Covacevich

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos
A Professional Corporation
100 N. Charles Street, 22nd Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Attorneys for Respondent
410-951-4782
Bar No.: 08078

13
 Case 1:10-cv-02613-BEL Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 14 of 14

I. (c) Attorneys:

Frederic C. Heyman
Glenn E. Mintzer
Anthony J. Covacevich
Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos
A Professional Corporation
100 N. Charles Street, 22nd Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Attorneys for Plaintiff
410-649-2000