Preview
FILED
2/15/2023 10:27 AM
2 CITESERVE FELICIA PITRE
JURY DEMAND DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS 00., TEXAS
Ashley Davenport DEPUTY
DC-23-021 57
CAUSE NO.
CHADWICK WILLIAMS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff, §
§ 162nd
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
SHAR KANDEH AND OSBURN §
TRUCKING, LLC §
§
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
T0 THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES, CHADWICK WILLIAMS, hereinafter referred to by name or as
Plaintiff, and complains of SHAR KANDEH AND OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC, hereinafter
referred to by name or as Defendant, and for cause of action would respectfully show unto the
Court as follows:
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL
1. Plaintiff contends that discovery shall be conducted under a Discovery Level 3,
pursuant to the TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE.
II. PARTIES AND SERVICE
2. Plaintiff, CHADWICK WILLIAMS, is an individual who is a resident of Dallas
County, Texas.
3. Defendant, SHAR KANDEH, is an individual and a resident of Texas, may be
served with process at home at the following address: 17450 Energy Ln., Dallas, Texas 75252-
61 88. (Citation Requested)
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 0F 7
4. Defendant, OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC is a corporation doing business in Texas
and can be served by its officer: Mike S. Nixon at 14241 Dallas Parkway, Suite 5 75, Dallas, Texas
75254. (Citation Requested)
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendant is a resident of
the State of Texas. Venue is proper in because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to this claim occurred in the county. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1).
6. Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 47 this is a cause of action that exceeds
$1,000,000.00 in damages and is within the Court’s jurisdictional limits.
IV. FA_CTS
7. On or about January 25, 2022, Plaintiff CHADWICK WILLIAMS was a
negligent free passenger in the vehicle of Melanie Crommett when a cement truck, driven by
Defendant SHAR KANDEH, struck the vehicle Plaintiff was in twice, causing Plaintiff’s
vehicle to spin out of control. Defendant SHAR KANDEH was employed by Defendant Ralph
Gonzalez. Due to the aforementioned negligent actions caused a serious impact creating lifelong
injuries, substantial amount of medical bills and economic damages.
8. Alternatively, Defendant OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC employed and controlled
Defendant SHAR KANDEH.
9. The above-referenced acts and/or omissions by the Defendants constitute malice
and/or gross negligence as that term is defined in §§ 41 .001(7) and 41 .001(1 l) of the CIVIL
PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE. Defendants were heedless and reckless, constituting an
extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others,
and Defendants were aware of the risk but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to
the rights, safety, and welfare of others, including the Plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 0F 7
V.
CAUSES 0F ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SHAR KANDEH
Negligence / Negligen ce Per Se
10. Defendant SHAR KANDEH had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a
reasonably carefi11 person would use to avoid harm to others under circumstances similar to those
described herein.
11. Plaintiff‘s injuries were proximately caused by Defendant’s negligent and careless
disregard of said duty.
12. The negligent and careless disregard of duty of Defendant SHAR KANDEH
consisted of, but is not limited to, the following acts and omissions:
A. in failing to maintain a proper lookout as a person of ordinary prudence would have
maintained under the same or similar circumstances;
B. in failing to apply or to timely apply brakes on the vehicle in order to avoid the collision
in question;
C. in failing to turn or swerve to the right to avoid the collision;
D. in failing to sound a horn to warn of imminent danger;
E. in failing to exercise ordinary care as a reasonably prudent person would have done under
the same or similar circumstances;
F. and in Violating §545.351 of the Texas Transportation Code in failing to control speed;
G. in Violating §545.351 of the Texas Transportation Code in following too closely.
Gross Negligence
13. Defendant’s negligent conduct was more than momentary thoughtlessness or
inadvertence. Rather, Defendant’s conduct involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the
probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiff. Defendant had actual, subjective
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 0F 7
awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless, preceded with conscious indifference to the rights,
safety, or welfare of Plaintiff or others similarly situated.
14. Each of the foregoing acts and/or omissions, singularly or in any combination with
others, constituted negligence and/or gross negligence which proximately caused the occurrence
made the basis of this action and Plaintiffs injuries and damages.
15. Gross negligence is defined herein as (l) an act and/or omission, when viewed
objectively from the Defendant’s standpoint, involved an extreme degree of risk, and (2) the
Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded with a conscious indifference
to the rights, safe, or welfare of others.
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
OSBURN TRUCKING. LLC
16. Defendant OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC was independently negligent by
negligently entrusting the vehicle to Defendant SHAR KANDEH when he knew or should have
known that SHAR KANDEH was an unlicensed, incompetent or reckless driver.
17. Furthermore, Defendant SHAR KANDEH was liable for causing the collision
made the basis of this lawsuit and Defendant SHAR KANDEH negligence was the proximate
cause of Plaintiff’ s injuries.
18. Defendant OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC was also independently negligent in on
or more of the following respects:
a. negligent hiring;
b. negligent driver qualifications;
c. negligent training
d. negligent supervision and monitoring of SHAR KANDEH;
e. negligent retention;
f. negligent contracting;
PLAINTIFF’s ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 0F 7
g. negligent maintenance;
h. Defendant failed to have an adequate safety program in place to ensure that an
effective ongoing monitoring and training of its drivers occurred;
i. Defendant placed a driver on the road knowing that the driver was impaired and
that such impairment could in all likelihood cause serious injury to others in the
event of an accident like that which occurred.
19. Each of these acts and/or omissions whether taken singularly or in any
combination constitute negligence and gross negligence which proximately caused the collision
and injuries and other losses as specifically set forth herein, all of which Plaintiff suffered and
which Plaintiffs will continue to suffer in the future if not for the remainder of his natural life.
VI.
DAMAGES
20. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of
SHAR KANDEH, Plaintiff CHADWICK WILLIAMS suffered severe bodily injuries to his
neck, back, and other parts of his body generally. The injuries are permanent in nature. The
injuries have had a serious effect on the Plaintiff’s health and well-being. These specific injuries
and their ill effects have, in turn, caused the Plaintiffs physical and mental condition to
deteriorate generally and the specific injuries and ill effects alleged have caused and will, in all
reasonable probability, cause the Plaintiff to suffer consequences and ill effects of this
deterioration throughout his body for a long time in the future, if not for the balance of his
natural life. As a fiirther result of the nature and consequences of his injuries, the Plaintiff
suffered great physical and mental pain, suffering and anguish and in all reasonable probability,
will continue to suffer in this manner for a long time into the filture, if not for the balance of his
natural life.
PLAINTIFF’s ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 0F 7
21. As a further result of all the above, Plaintiff has incurred expenses for his medical
care and attention. These expenses were incurred for the necessary care and treatment of the
injuries resulting from the incident complained of. The charges are reasonable and were the
usual and customary charges made for such services in the County where they were incurred.
22. As a further result of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, there is a reasonable
probability that he will require further medical care and attention and will incur future reasonable
and necessary expenses for his medical care and attention.
23. As a consequence of the injuries sustained in this occurrence, Plaintiff
CHADWICK WILLIAMS has suffered debilitating injuries that will, in all reasonable
probability, cause him to suffer long into the future, if not for the balance of his natural life, all to
the damage in an amount that is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court for which he now
sues.
24. By reason of all the above, Plaintiff CHADWICK WILLIAMS has suffered
losses and damages in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this Court for which he now sues.
PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
25. Plaintiff fiirther requests both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all
damages as allowed by law.
VII.
JURY DEMAND
26. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and tenders payment this date of the required jury
fee.
PRAYER
PLAINTIFF’s ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 0F 7
27. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that the Defendant
be cited to appear and answer, and on final trial hereafter, the Plaintiff has judgment against
Defendants in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with all pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of Court, and for such other and
further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled by law and equity, including, but not limited
t0:
Pain and suffering in the past;
Pain and suffering in the future;
Mental anguish in the past;
Mental anguish in the future;
Past medical expenses;
Future medical expenses;
Physical impairment in the past;
Physical impairment in the future;
Physical disfigurement in the past;
10. Physical disfigurement in the future;
ll. Pre-judgment interest;
12. Post judgment interest;
13. Exemplary damages;
l4. Lost wages; and
15. Future loss of earning capacity.
Respectfully Submitted,
MCCORMICK LAW FIRM
400 South Industrial Boulevard, Suite 200
Euless, Texas 76040
Tel: (682) 444-4444
Fax: (817) 789-6720
By: /s/ Brandon H. Steffev
Brandon H. Steffey
State Bar No. 24047207
bsteffey@theiniuryattomeylaw
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7 0F 7
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Nicholas Brooks on behalf of Brandon Steffey
Bar No. 24047207
Nbrooks@theinjuryattorney.law
Envelope ID: 72779697
Status as of 2/17/2023 10:34 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Brandon H.Steffey bsteffey@theinjuryattorney.law 2/15/2023 10:27:28 AM SENT
Nereyda Ortiz NOrtiz@theinjuryattorney.law 2/ 15/2023 10:27:28 AM SENT
Nicholas Brooks NBrooks@theinjuryattorney.law 2/ 15/2023 10:27:28 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 2/15/2023 10:27 AM 2 CITESERVE FELICIA PITRE JURY DEMAND DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS Ashley Davenport DEPUTY DC-23-021 57 CAUSE NO. CHADWICK WILLIAMS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § 162nd V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT § SHAR KANDEH AND OSBURN § TRUCKING, LLC § § Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION T0 THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES, CHADWICK WILLIAMS, hereinafter referred to by name or as Plaintiff, and complains of SHAR KANDEH AND OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC, hereinafter referred to by name or as Defendant, and for cause of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL 1. Plaintiff contends that discovery shall be conducted under a Discovery Level 3, pursuant to the TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE. II. PARTIES AND SERVICE 2. Plaintiff, CHADWICK WILLIAMS, is an individual who is a resident of Dallas County, Texas. 3. Defendant, SHAR KANDEH, is an individual and a resident of Texas, may be served with process at home at the following address: 17450 Energy Ln., Dallas, Texas 75252- 61 88. (Citation Requested) PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 0F 7 4. Defendant, OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC is a corporation doing business in Texas and can be served by its officer: Mike S. Nixon at 14241 Dallas Parkway, Suite 5 75, Dallas, Texas 75254. (Citation Requested) III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendant because Defendant is a resident of the State of Texas. Venue is proper in because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the county. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(1). 6. Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 47 this is a cause of action that exceeds $1,000,000.00 in damages and is within the Court’s jurisdictional limits. IV. FA_CTS 7. On or about January 25, 2022, Plaintiff CHADWICK WILLIAMS was a negligent free passenger in the vehicle of Melanie Crommett when a cement truck, driven by Defendant SHAR KANDEH, struck the vehicle Plaintiff was in twice, causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to spin out of control. Defendant SHAR KANDEH was employed by Defendant Ralph Gonzalez. Due to the aforementioned negligent actions caused a serious impact creating lifelong injuries, substantial amount of medical bills and economic damages. 8. Alternatively, Defendant OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC employed and controlled Defendant SHAR KANDEH. 9. The above-referenced acts and/or omissions by the Defendants constitute malice and/or gross negligence as that term is defined in §§ 41 .001(7) and 41 .001(1 l) of the CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE. Defendants were heedless and reckless, constituting an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Defendants were aware of the risk but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others, including the Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 0F 7 V. CAUSES 0F ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SHAR KANDEH Negligence / Negligen ce Per Se 10. Defendant SHAR KANDEH had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably carefi11 person would use to avoid harm to others under circumstances similar to those described herein. 11. Plaintiff‘s injuries were proximately caused by Defendant’s negligent and careless disregard of said duty. 12. The negligent and careless disregard of duty of Defendant SHAR KANDEH consisted of, but is not limited to, the following acts and omissions: A. in failing to maintain a proper lookout as a person of ordinary prudence would have maintained under the same or similar circumstances; B. in failing to apply or to timely apply brakes on the vehicle in order to avoid the collision in question; C. in failing to turn or swerve to the right to avoid the collision; D. in failing to sound a horn to warn of imminent danger; E. in failing to exercise ordinary care as a reasonably prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances; F. and in Violating §545.351 of the Texas Transportation Code in failing to control speed; G. in Violating §545.351 of the Texas Transportation Code in following too closely. Gross Negligence 13. Defendant’s negligent conduct was more than momentary thoughtlessness or inadvertence. Rather, Defendant’s conduct involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiff. Defendant had actual, subjective PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 0F 7 awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless, preceded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiff or others similarly situated. 14. Each of the foregoing acts and/or omissions, singularly or in any combination with others, constituted negligence and/or gross negligence which proximately caused the occurrence made the basis of this action and Plaintiffs injuries and damages. 15. Gross negligence is defined herein as (l) an act and/or omission, when viewed objectively from the Defendant’s standpoint, involved an extreme degree of risk, and (2) the Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded with a conscious indifference to the rights, safe, or welfare of others. CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST OSBURN TRUCKING. LLC 16. Defendant OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC was independently negligent by negligently entrusting the vehicle to Defendant SHAR KANDEH when he knew or should have known that SHAR KANDEH was an unlicensed, incompetent or reckless driver. 17. Furthermore, Defendant SHAR KANDEH was liable for causing the collision made the basis of this lawsuit and Defendant SHAR KANDEH negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’ s injuries. 18. Defendant OSBURN TRUCKING, LLC was also independently negligent in on or more of the following respects: a. negligent hiring; b. negligent driver qualifications; c. negligent training d. negligent supervision and monitoring of SHAR KANDEH; e. negligent retention; f. negligent contracting; PLAINTIFF’s ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 0F 7 g. negligent maintenance; h. Defendant failed to have an adequate safety program in place to ensure that an effective ongoing monitoring and training of its drivers occurred; i. Defendant placed a driver on the road knowing that the driver was impaired and that such impairment could in all likelihood cause serious injury to others in the event of an accident like that which occurred. 19. Each of these acts and/or omissions whether taken singularly or in any combination constitute negligence and gross negligence which proximately caused the collision and injuries and other losses as specifically set forth herein, all of which Plaintiff suffered and which Plaintiffs will continue to suffer in the future if not for the remainder of his natural life. VI. DAMAGES 20. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of SHAR KANDEH, Plaintiff CHADWICK WILLIAMS suffered severe bodily injuries to his neck, back, and other parts of his body generally. The injuries are permanent in nature. The injuries have had a serious effect on the Plaintiff’s health and well-being. These specific injuries and their ill effects have, in turn, caused the Plaintiffs physical and mental condition to deteriorate generally and the specific injuries and ill effects alleged have caused and will, in all reasonable probability, cause the Plaintiff to suffer consequences and ill effects of this deterioration throughout his body for a long time in the future, if not for the balance of his natural life. As a fiirther result of the nature and consequences of his injuries, the Plaintiff suffered great physical and mental pain, suffering and anguish and in all reasonable probability, will continue to suffer in this manner for a long time into the filture, if not for the balance of his natural life. PLAINTIFF’s ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 0F 7 21. As a further result of all the above, Plaintiff has incurred expenses for his medical care and attention. These expenses were incurred for the necessary care and treatment of the injuries resulting from the incident complained of. The charges are reasonable and were the usual and customary charges made for such services in the County where they were incurred. 22. As a further result of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, there is a reasonable probability that he will require further medical care and attention and will incur future reasonable and necessary expenses for his medical care and attention. 23. As a consequence of the injuries sustained in this occurrence, Plaintiff CHADWICK WILLIAMS has suffered debilitating injuries that will, in all reasonable probability, cause him to suffer long into the future, if not for the balance of his natural life, all to the damage in an amount that is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court for which he now sues. 24. By reason of all the above, Plaintiff CHADWICK WILLIAMS has suffered losses and damages in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this Court for which he now sues. PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST 25. Plaintiff fiirther requests both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages as allowed by law. VII. JURY DEMAND 26. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and tenders payment this date of the required jury fee. PRAYER PLAINTIFF’s ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 0F 7 27. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and on final trial hereafter, the Plaintiff has judgment against Defendants in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with all pre- judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of Court, and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled by law and equity, including, but not limited t0: Pain and suffering in the past; Pain and suffering in the future; Mental anguish in the past; Mental anguish in the future; Past medical expenses; Future medical expenses; Physical impairment in the past; Physical impairment in the future; Physical disfigurement in the past; 10. Physical disfigurement in the future; ll. Pre-judgment interest; 12. Post judgment interest; 13. Exemplary damages; l4. Lost wages; and 15. Future loss of earning capacity. Respectfully Submitted, MCCORMICK LAW FIRM 400 South Industrial Boulevard, Suite 200 Euless, Texas 76040 Tel: (682) 444-4444 Fax: (817) 789-6720 By: /s/ Brandon H. Steffev Brandon H. Steffey State Bar No. 24047207 bsteffey@theiniuryattomeylaw ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7 0F 7 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Nicholas Brooks on behalf of Brandon Steffey Bar No. 24047207 Nbrooks@theinjuryattorney.law Envelope ID: 72779697 Status as of 2/17/2023 10:34 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Brandon H.Steffey bsteffey@theinjuryattorney.law 2/15/2023 10:27:28 AM SENT Nereyda Ortiz NOrtiz@theinjuryattorney.law 2/ 15/2023 10:27:28 AM SENT Nicholas Brooks NBrooks@theinjuryattorney.law 2/ 15/2023 10:27:28 AM SENT