Terror on the Links (and we thought "Happy Gilmore" was just fiction!)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
JAMES P. WIENCEK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) COMPLAINT
) (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
FRIPP ISLAND RESORT, INC., THE )
OCEAN COURSES OF FRIPP, INC., )
FRIPP ISLAND COMPANY, INC. AND )
THE MARINA VILLAGE OF FRIPP, INC. )
)
Defendants. )
TO: FRIPP ISLAND RESORT, INC., THE OCEAN COURSES OF FRIPP, INC.,
FRIPP ISLAND COMPANY, INC., THE MARINA VILLAGE OF FRIPP, INC.
THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
The Plaintiff would respectfully show unto the Court that:
1. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Ohio.
2. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina with their principal places of
business in the State of South Carolina. The Defendant Fripp Island Resort, Inc. (“FIR”)
owns the subsidiary entities
3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants owned, operated,
and managed a golf course, Ocean Creek Golf Club, located at 90B Ocean Creek
Boulevard, Fripp Island, South Carolina.
4. The District Court of South Carolina possesses jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the parties are completely diverse and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
9:11-cv-00127-MBS Date Filed 01/18/11 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 6
2
5. Venue is appropriate in the Beaufort Division of the District Court of
South Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and Local Civil Rule 3.01 DSC because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within the
Beaufort Division of the District of South Carolina.
6. On the afternoon of October 8, 2009, the Plaintiff was playing a round of
golf at the Ocean Creek Golf Club course with his son.
7. Plaintiff had not played a round of golf at the Ocean Course or Fripp
Island before October 8, 2009.
8. Upon information and belief, the Defendants failed to place any signs or
other objects warning of the presence of large, wild, dangerous, and aggressive alligators
at the Ocean Course.
9. During the round of golf above mentioned, and while playing the 11th
hole, Plaintiff hit his golf ball near, but not in, a large and deep pond near the 11th green.
10 The bank of the pond was surrounded by long grass, and the bank itself
was steep.
11. The water in the pond was dark and brackish, and the Plaintiff was unable
to see under the surface of the water.
12. Without placing any part of his body over or in the pond, Plaintiff
attempted to reach his ball with his right arm.
13. When Plaintiff reached his right arm towards his ball, without warning a
large 10 foot long alligator sprung from the brackish and dark water and attacked
Plaintiff, biting and holding Plaintiff’s right arm.
9:11-cv-00127-MBS Date Filed 01/18/11 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 6
3
14. The alligator then pulled Plaintiff into the water and attempted to initiate a
roll, pulling Plaintiff underwater. Plaintiff struggled with the alligator, and the alligator
tore Plaintiff’s right arm off in a violent and vicious manner above the elbow.
15. Plaintiff was helped to the shore by his son and attended to by other
patrons of the course.
16 The alligator swam away, having eaten Plaintiff’s arm.
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
17. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges as if verbatim paragraphs 1-16.
18. Upon information and belief, and prior to October 8, 2009, residents of
nearby homes had noticed the alligator’s large size and aggressive behavior and had
alerted the Defendants to its presence and behavior.
19. Upon information and belief, the Defendants had actual or constructive
knowledge of the ongoing presence and aggressive behavior of the large alligator at the
Ocean Creek Golf Club prior to the attack on the Plaintiff.
20. Upon information and belief, the Defendants failed to take reasonable
action to secure the premises of the golf course and to warn its business invitees,
including the Plaintiff, of the alligator’s aggressive presence, size, or aggressive behavior.
21. The Defendants had a duty to take make the golf course premises
reasonably safe for the Plaintiff and to warn the Plaintiff of the presence of the large,
dangerous, and aggressive alligator.
22. The Defendants had a statutory duty to remove problematic alligators in
accordance with the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 50-15-65 (1976) and S.C. Code Ann.
Regs. § 123-151(B) (2009).
9:11-cv-00127-MBS Date Filed 01/18/11 Entry Number 1 Page 3 of 6
4
23. As a result of the alligator attack, the Plaintiff suffered the following
injuries and damages:
a) extensive pain, mental anguish, suffering and discomfort;
b) disability for a period of time, past and future;
c) money spent for medical care and treatment, past, present and
future;
d) inability to carry on normal activities;
e) permanent injuries and partial disability;
f) emotional trauma and distress; and,
g) loss of enjoyment of life.
24. The injuries and damages incurred by the Plaintiff were directly and
proximately caused by the Defendants’ careless, negligent, grossly negligent, willful,
wanton, reckless, and unlawful acts in one or more of the following particulars:
a) in failing to properly secure the premises of the Ocean Creek Golf
Course from the aggressive alligator;
b) in failing to warn the Plaintiff of the presence of the large,
aggressive alligator, when the Defendants knew or had reason to
know of its size and aggressive behavior and should have
anticipated the resulting harm;
c) in failing to properly respond to resident complaints of the
alligator’s size and aggressive behavior;
d) in violating the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 50-15-65 (1976)
and S.C. Code Ann. Regs. § 123-151(B) (2009);
9:11-cv-00127-MBS Date Filed 01/18/11 Entry Number 1 Page 4 of 6
5
e) in creating an artificial environment conducive to the growth and
presence of large, aggressive alligators;
f) in designing, building, and maintaining the 11th hole pond such
that it had dark, brackish water, steep banks, and thick vegetation
rendering it difficult or impossible for golf patrons to see or notice
the presence of large and aggressive alligators; and,
g) in otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care warranted by the
circumstances as then and there existing, and as shall be developed
by further discovery in this action.
25. The Defendants’ careless, negligent, willful, wanton, reckless and
unlawful acts were the direct and proximate cause of the alligator attack and resulting
injuries and damages to the Plaintiff.
26. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that he is entitled to judgment
against the Defendants for actual and punitive damages in an appropriate amount.