You are on page 1of 13

Z.G.

, a minor, by and through her parents and next


friends, Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier,

827 Yardley Drive


Prince Frederick, MD 20678

and

C.G., a minor, by and through his parents and next IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
friends, Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier,

827 Yardley Drive PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,


Prince Frederick, MD 20678

MARYLAND
and

M.R., a minor, by and through her parents and next


friends, Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier,

827 Yardley Drive Case No. ____________


Prince Frederick, MD 20678

and

CARLOS GREEN, individually and as father and next


friend of his minor children Z.G., C.G. and M.R.,

827 Yardley Drive


Prince Frederick, MD 20678

and

RYDRICKA ROSIER, individually and as mother and


next friend of her minor children Z.G., C.G. and M.R.,

827 Yardley Drive


Prince Frederick, MD 20678

Plaintiffs
v.

MGM NATIONAL HARBOR, LLC

3950 Las Vegas Blvd South


Las Vegas, NC 89119

SERVE

CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company


7 St. Paul Street
Suite 820
Baltimore, MD 21202

and

NATIONAL HARBOR GRAND, LLC

165 Waterfront Street


National Harbor, MD 20745

SERVE

The Corporation Trust, Inc.


2405 York Rd.
Suite 201
Lutherville Timinium, MD 21093-2264

and

THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING


COMPANY

300 E. Joppa Rd.


Baltimore, MD 21286

SERVE

Timothy J. Regan
The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company
300 E. Joppa Rd.
Baltimore, MD 21286

and

ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC


880 Mabury Rd.
San Jose, CA 95133

SERVE

2
The Corporation Trust, Inc.
2405 York Rd.
Suite 201
Lutherville Timinium, MD 21093-2264

Defendants

COMPLAINT

Minor plaintiffs Z.G., C.G., and M.R., by and through their parents and next friends,

Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier, and Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier, individually

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys Morelli Law Firm, PLLC and Stein Mitchell

Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP, respectfully allege as follows

Nature of the Case

1. Plaintiffs hereby bring this Complaint against Defendant MGM National Harbor,

LLC (hereinafter, “MGM”) and National Harbor Grand, LLC (hereinafter, “National Harbor

Grand”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from severe physical and emotional

injuries that Plaintiffs sustained as a result of Defendant MGM’s recklessness. Plaintiffs’ claims

arise out of an incident that occurred on the evening of June 26, 2018 at the MGM National

Harbor resort and casino located in Oxon Hill, Maryland wherein multiple members of the

Green-Rosier family, while visiting the MGM National Harbor resort, were electrocuted by a

dangerously electrified metal staircase handrail, which was adjacent to a large fountain and in an

area illuminated by bright LED lights. Those Plaintiffs all sustained serious injuries. Minor

plaintiff Z.G., who is six years old, sustained the most devastating physical injuries. She went

into cardiac arrest as a result of being electrocuted by the handrail, suffered severe and

3
permanent neurologic injuries, was hospitalized in critical condition, and is now in an acute care

medical facility. Minor plaintiff C.G., who is five years-old, and minor plaintiff M.R., who is

sixteen years-old, were both hospitalized for days as a result of their injuries. Rydricka Rosier

was not only electrocuted herself, but was also in the zone of danger and witnessed her three

children get electrocuted, helped in the efforts to rescue them and saw her youngest daughter

Z.G. go into cardiac arrest. This incident has had a devastating and life-altering impact on the

Plaintiffs and their entire family.

Parties

2. Minor plaintiff Z.G. is a six year-old child, who at the time of the events in

question was living with her parents, Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier, in Prince Frederick,

Maryland.

3. Minor plaintiff C.G. is a five year-old who lives with his parents, Carlos Green

and Rydricka Rosier, in Prince Frederick, Maryland.

4. Minor plaintiff Monya Rosier is a sixteen year-old child who lives with her

parents, Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier, in Prince Frederick, Maryland.

5. Plaintiffs Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier are individuals, parents, next friends,

and natural guardians of Z.G., C.G., and M.R.. They reside in the City of Prince Frederick,

County of Calvert, State of Maryland.

6. MGM National Harbor, LLC is a Nevada Limited Liability Company with its

principal place of business in Maryland. The MGM National Harbor resort is located on MGM

National Avenue, Oxon Hill, MD 20745, in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The resort

includes a 24-story hotel, a 125,000 square foot casino, a concert venue that seats over 3,000

4
people, numerous restaurants, bars and a luxury spa and salon, among other things. Defendant

MGM owns, manages and maintains the premises.

7. National Harbor Grand LLC is a Maryland Limited Liability Company with its

principal place of business in Maryland. National Harbor Grand, LLC was, and still is, the

owner of the land located at MGM National Avenue, Oxon Hill, MD 20745.

8. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a Maryland corporation with its

principal place of business in Maryland. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company was hired

by MGM National Harbor to serve as the general contractor for the construction of its hotel and

casino.

9. Rosendin Electric, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of

business in California. The company has an office in Glen Burnie, MD. Rosendin Electric, Inc.

served as the electrical contractor during the construction of the MGM National Harbor hotel and

casino.

Jurisdiction and Venue

10. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court as the subject incident occurred at

Defendant MGM’s resort, which is located in Prince George’s County, and the amount in

controversy exceeds the concurrent jurisdictional limit of this Court.

Statement of Facts

11. In April of 2013—shortly after table games were legalized at Maryland casinos—

Defendant MGM and Defendant National Harbor Grand entered into a hotel and casino ground

lease.

5
12. Upon information and belief, the ground lease set forth that Defendant MGM

would open and operate a hotel and casino at the subject premises owned by Defendant National

Harbor Grand.

13. The MGM National Harbor opened to the public in the fall of 2016. The 23-acre

resort in Prince George’s County includes restaurants from celebrity chefs, a concert venue, a

food hall, a 24-story hotel, a luxury spa and salon and a 125,000 square foot casino.

14. Upon information and belief, Defendant MGM owned, operated, controlled and

maintained the premises including, but not limited to the location where the subject incident

occurred.

15. Upon information and belief, Defendant National Harbor Grand owned, operated,

controlled and maintained the premises including, but not limited to the location where the

subject incident occurred.

16. As owners and operators of the premises, defendants had a non-delegable duty to

ensure that their premises was in compliance with all applicable codes relating to safety –

including but not limited to building codes, electrical codes, and property maintenance codes.

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant MGM hired Defendant Whiting-Turner

Contracting Company (hereinafter, “Whiting-Turner”) to serve as the general contractor and/or

construction manager for the construction of the MGM National Harbor hotel and casino.

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant MGM entered into a written agreement

with Defendant Whiting-Turner where Whiting-Turner was to provide certain construction

services, labor and materials to Defendant MGM for construction work at the MGM National

Harbor hotel and casino.

6
19. Defendant Whiting-Turner had a duty to ensure that the work performed at the

premises was in compliance with all applicable codes relating to safety – including but not

limited to building codes, electrical codes, and property maintenance codes.

20. Defendant Whiting-Turner hired Defendant Rosendin Electric, Inc. (hereinafter,

“Rosendin Electric”) to perform electrical contracting work at the premises.

21. Rosendin Electric installed, or directed the installation of the electrical wiring at

the premises, including, but not limited to the electrical wiring in and around the subject

handrail.

22. Defendant Rosendin Electric had a duty to ensure that the work performed at the

premises was in compliance with all applicable codes relating to safety – including but not

limited to building codes, electrical codes, and property maintenance codes.

23. On the evening of June 26, 2018, Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier brought their

children M.R., Z.G. and C.G. to visit the MGM National Harbor resort. They were invitees of

the defendants. .

24. Rydricka Rosier brought M.R. Z.G. and C.G. to see a large outdoor fountain at the

resort.

25. The fountain is an attraction for resort patrons to see. It is colorfully illuminated

at night and has spouts that shoot streams of water high into the air.

26. The large circular fountain is at the bottom of a stadium-like outdoor area on the

resort premises.

27. Upon exiting the hotel to enter the outdoor area near the fountain, there are steps

to walk down to the fountain. These steps have metal handrails which extend from the top of the

steps all the way to the bottom of the steps where the fountain is.

7
28. Bright LED lights illuminate the area around these handrails at night.

29. Z.G., C.G. and M.R. touched the handrails as they descended toward the fountain.

Their conduct was easily foreseeable as the handrails are intended for use of patrons.

30. Unbeknownst to plaintiffs, one of the handrails had become dangerously

electrified as a result of an electrical malfunction.

31. Upon information and belief, there were 120 volts of electricity going through the

dangerously electrified handrail—more than 10 times the amount that should have been

powering the handrail lighting.

32. This condition—the dangerously electrified handrail—had existed for a

significant period of time. Defendants had actual and constructive notice of this dangerous and

defective condition.

33. When Z.G., C.G. and M.R. touched the electrified handrail, they were violently

electrocuted and injured.

34. Rydricka was standing next to the children and saw them get electrocuted. She

too was electrocuted when she attempted to pull them off the handrail.

35. A security guard came to render aid to the children and he too was electrocuted

when he tried to remove Z.G. from the handrail.

36. As a result of being electrocuted, Z.G. went into cardiac arrest and needed to be

resuscitated by emergency personnel before being rushed to the hospital. She suffered severe

and permanent neurological injuries. C.G.’s electrocution-related injuries caused him to lose

consciousness. He and M.R. were both hospitalized as a result of their electrocution-related

injuries.

8
37. After being hospitalized for nearly two months, Z.G. has now been moved to an

acute rehabilitation facility where she receives around-the-clock care and medical attention. Her

life-altering injuries will tremendously impact her and her family’s lives moving forward.

38. C.G. and M.R. also suffered serious injuries requiring hospitalization..

39. Plaintiffs Carlos Green and Rydricka Rosier have been forced to expend, and will

continued to expend large sums of money for hospitalization, medical treatment, and other

injury-related care for Z.G., C.G. and M.R., particularly with reference to their daughter Z.G.’s

medical care and treatment.

40. Defendants were, or should have been on notice of the defect that caused the

handrail to become electrified.

41. Upon information and belief, the LED lights surrounding the subject handrail

were out for days before the accident.

42. These malfunctioning LED lights should have put Defendants on notice of a

potentially dangerous condition whereby hotel patrons were at serious risk of being electrocuted.

43. Defendants regularly had security cameras that captured the area where the

subject incident occurred. Defendants also regularly had security guards and other personnel that

worked in this outdoor area where the subject incident occurred.

44. Accordingly, Defendants knew or should have known that the LED lights near the

subject handrail were out, and should have inspected what was causing this defect. Had they

inspected, Defendants would have discovered the electrical defect that was causing the handrail

to be dangerously electrified, and this incident would have been prevented.

9
45. Upon information and belief, security video showed patrons at the MGM National

Harbor appearing to be jolted with electricity when touching the handrail on numerous occasions

in the days before the subject incident.

46. This is also evidence that Defendants knew or should have known that the

staircase handrail had become dangerously electrified.

47. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not have a defibrillator available to

render immediate and necessary aid to Z.G., who had gone into cardiac arrest as a result of being

electrocuted by the handrail.

48. Upon information and belief, Defendants, in their haste to open their hotel and

casino, intentionally urged its construction workers—especially the electrical contractors and

inspectors—to finish their jobs quickly, at the expense of safety.

49. The electrical wiring at the premises, including, but not limited to the wiring in

and around the handrail was installed and maintained in a defective, shoddy, and reckless

manner, and presented a serious safety risk to anybody who might come into contact with the

hand rail.

50. Upon information and belief, the electrical wiring at the premises, including, but

not limited to the wiring in and around the handrail was inappropriately supervised by

Defendants.

51. Defendants urged the electrical inspector to approve the electrical work performed

as safe and compliant, even when it was not, in order to open the hotel as quickly as possible so

MGM could begin reaping financial benefit immediately despite obvious and significant danger

to the hotel’s visitors and patrons.

10
52. Upon information and belief, Defendants intentionally ignored safety codes,

regulations and protocols—to the detriment of the hotel’s patrons and visitors such as the

Plaintiffs in this case—to open the hotel as soon as possible, with its focus on immediately

making money.

Count One – Intentional, Reckless and Negligent Misconduct

53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

54. Defendants were under a duty to Plaintiffs, as invitees on their property, to

maintain their premises in a safe manner and free from dangerous conditions.

55. Defendants breached this duty by allowing a dangerous condition—the

dangerously electrified handrail—to exist on their premises. This dangerous condition existed in

a popular area of the hotel near a large illuminated fountain, which was an attraction for the

invitees such as Plaintiffs who frequented the premises.

56. Defendants knew, or should have known of the dangerous condition and failed to

remedy same.

57. Defendants breached their duty by allowing this dangerous condition to exist.

58. The Defendants had an obligation to comply with all applicable state and local

safety codes, including but not limited to building codes, electrical codes and property

management codes, and failed to do so.

59. Defendants’ misconduct, as set forth above, was so dangerous as to amount to a

conscious and malicious disregard for the safety of visitors to its hotel, including the safety of

Plaintiffs.

11
60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs were caused

to suffer severe physical and emotional injuries.

61. Further, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional, reckless and

negligent misconduct, Plaintiffs have been forced to expend, and will continued to expend large

sums of money for hospitalization and medical treatment. In particular, and without limitation,

Plaintiff Z.G. will require tremendous amounts of multi-specialty medical, nursing and

rehabilitation care for the rest of her life, which is likely to be highly expensive, as a result of the

injuries that she sustained due to Defendants’ misconduct.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants for compensatory and punitive

damages in amount exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000), plus costs, attorney’s

fees and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Date: November ___, 2018


Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________ _______________________________________
Benedict P. Morelli Denis C. Mitchell
David T. Sirotkin STEIN MITCHELL CIPOLLONE BEATO &
MORELLI LAW FIRM, PLLC MISSNER, LLP
777 Third Avenue, 31st Fl. 901 15th St., NW Suite 700
New York, NY 10017 Washington, DC 20005
(212) 751-9800 (212) 661=0917
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Pending Admission Pro Hac Vice

12
Jury Prayer

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

_______________________
Denis C. Mitchell

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO RULE 1-313

I, Denis C. Mitchell, counsel for the plaintiffs, hereby certify that I am member in good

standing of the Bar of the State of Maryland. My address and phone number are:

Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner, LLP


915 15th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington DC 20005
202-737-7777
____________________________
Denis C. Mitchell

13