Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are subscribers to the City of Denmark’s water service for the last ten
years. They bring this class action for Breach of Contract and Breach of Implied
Warranty against the City of Denmark for defective water pursuant to Rule 23 of the
South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant warranted that its water was fit for
drinking and for other household purposes. However, the City of Denmark had been
adding HaloSan, a chemical, to its drinking water where the chemical had not been
approved by the United States for human consumption or to disinfect drinking water. 1
The City of Denmark had been adding this chemical for approximately ten years for the
purpose of regulating naturally occurring iron bacteria that can leave red stains or rust-
like deposits.
1
News reports have represented that Defendant relied on the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control’s approval of the practice involved in this
Complaint. Defendant is free to implead SCDHEC in this action if it so relied.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Nov 15 5:23 PM - BAMBERG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP0500242
The Parties
Carolina.
Carolina.
South Carolina.
Carolina. It is being sued as a market participant and seller of goods and services. Thus,
this action is not brought under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.
businesses are all citizens of South Carolina and Defendant is a municipality in the State
of South Carolina.
6. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and omissions complained
Factual Allegations
and Class Members in exchange for a fee. This fee is based, in part, by water usage.
purposes for years, including the last ten years as set forth by this Complaint.
Page 2 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Nov 15 5:23 PM - BAMBERG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP0500242
10. Approximately 10 years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
began adding a chemical, HaloSan, to its water at one of its four wells.
11. HaloSan is a disinfectant typically used to treat pools and spas. It is not
12. According to the EPA, HaloSan has not undergone the necessary
evaluations as part of the pesticide registration process. Thus, the EPA cannot confirm
the safe use of the chemical for the disinfection of drinking water. Moreover, the EPA
has not been provided with any data regarding whether HaloSan can disinfect drinking
13. An EPA risk assessment from 2007 noted that HaloSan can be a
significant eye and skin irritant and can cause burning, rash, itching, skin
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant added HaloSan to its water
supply to the Class Members to make the water appear clean and to regulate naturally
occurring bacteria that can leave red stains or rust-like deposits in the water.
15. Further, it does not appear that Defendant regulated the dosage of HaloSan
in the administration process or filtered such water before distribution to Class Members.
16. Notwithstanding that Defendant has added this unapproved chemical to its
water supply, it sold same to Class Members and by doing so implicitly represented that
the water was fit for a particular purpose, namely consumption for drinking and other
household purposes.
Page 3 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Nov 15 5:23 PM - BAMBERG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP0500242
17. Each Plaintiff purchased water from Defendant for the last ten years.
Each Plaintiff used the water purchased for household purposes, including for drinking
and consumer water that included a chemical that was not approved by the EPA and was
19. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the following
All citizens of South Carolina who paid water bills to the City of Denmark
within three years of the filing of this Complaint.
20. Defendant has acted in the same or similar manner with respect to all
Class Members.
21. All Class Members purchased the same or similar water which was not fit
Plaintiffs believe that there are presently thousands of customers who purchased water
23. There are numerous questions of law and fact that are common to all Class
Members and that predominate over individual questions, if any. Common questions of
Page 4 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Nov 15 5:23 PM - BAMBERG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP0500242
(a) Whether Defendant’s water supply defective and not suited for
(d) Whether all Class Members have suffered the same or similar
merchantability;
particular purpose;
24. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members.
Plaintiffs are members of the class. Plaintiffs assert the same rights, making the same
claims, and seeking the same relief for themselves and for all other Class Members.
25. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of
the class. Plaintiffs have no interests that conflict with or which are adverse to the
interests of other class or Subclass Members. Plaintiffs have retained qualified attorneys
26. A class action is a fair and efficient method to adjudicate this controversy.
questions.
Page 5 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Nov 15 5:23 PM - BAMBERG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP0500242
(b) Proof of plaintiff’s claims will effectively prove the claims of all
(c) Resolution of the claims of the class and subclasses will depend on
(d) A class action will permit a large number of relatively small claims
involving similar facts and legal issues to be resolved efficiently in one proceeding
will enable Plaintiffs to identify Class Members, and establish liability and damages.
or similar manner.
27. The amount of damages for each class member exceeds $100.
29. Defendant provided Plaintiffs with written and/or oral express warranties
Plaintiffs.
Page 6 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Nov 15 5:23 PM - BAMBERG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP0500242
31. Plaintiffs notified Defendant of this breach within a reasonable time after
discovery of the breach and gave Defendant an opportunity to remedy said breach before
filing suit.
and fitness for a particular purpose regarding the water supply sold to Class Members.
Plaintiffs.
36. Plaintiffs notified Defendant of this breach within a reasonable time after
discovery of the breach gave Defendant an opportunity to remedy said breach before
filing suit.
request judgment in their favor and against Defendant, and request the following relief:
(a) certification of the plaintiff class, the appointment of Plaintiffs as the class
Page 7 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Nov 15 5:23 PM - BAMBERG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP0500242
(b) compensatory damages for the class to be determined at trial, together
JURY DEMAND
s/ Bakari T. Sellers_____________________
J. Preston Strom, Jr. (SC Bar No. 5400)
Mario A. Pacella (SC Bar No. 68488)
Bakari T. Sellers (SC Bar No. 79714)
2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A
Columbia, SC 29204
Telephone: (803) 252-4800
Fax: (803) 252-4801
petestrom@stromlaw.com
mpacella@stromlaw.com
bsellers@stromlaw.com
Page 8 of 8