Preview
Filing # 178678065 E-Filed 08/01/2023 02:24:05 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN
AND FOR COLUMBIA COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
GARY R. IRBY, individually for himself, Case #:
and as parent and natural guardian Div:
of M.M.I, a minor,
Plaintiff,
-VS.-
MIGUEL ROMERO HERNANDEZ, SANTA CLARA
TRUCKING SOLUTIONS CORP., a Florida corporation,
and GBT TRUCKING, LLC, a foreign corporation.
Defendants.
/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Gary R. Irby, individually for himself, and as parent and natural guardian of
M.M.L, a minor, sues Miguel Romero Hernandez (hereinafter, “Hernandez”), Santa Clara
Trucking Solutions Corp., a Florida corporation (hereinafter, “Santa Clara”) and GBT Trucking
LLC, a foreign corporation (hereinafter, “GBT”), and alleges:
Parties and Jurisdictional Allegations
This Action arises out of a May 27, 2023 trucking crash in Columbia County.
Venue is proper in this Court as the crash occurred in Columbia County.!
3 Plaintiff is a resident of Clay County, Florida.
4 Santa Clara is a Florida corporation doing business as a commercial trucking
company from its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material,
1 See Fla. St. §47.011.
a ce ws
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon UN ewman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
Electronically Filed Columbia Case # 23000504CAAXMX 08/01/2023 02:24:05 PM
Santa Clara owned a commercial motor vehicle (“CMV”) described as 2005 Freightliner tractor,
model number ST120 bearing vehicle identification number 1FUJBBCK65LM69499 and Florida
tag JD69YK, that was towing a 53-foot trailer (“tractor/trailer”) in Interstate Commerce on
Interstate 10 in Columbia County, Florida.
5 GBT is a Texas corporation doing business as a licensed Interstate commercial
motor carrier, operating from its principal place of business in Woodville, Texas. At all times
material, GBT was a motor carrier operating Santa Clara’s tractor/trailer under the authority of the
United States Department of Transportation and under its USDOT certification number 3831431.
At all times material, GBT was doing substantial, and not isolated, business in and throughout the
State of Florida. This Court has Personal Jurisdiction over GBT pursuant to Florida’s Long-Arm
Statute because it committed a tort in Florida.”
6 Hernandez is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material,
Hernandez was driving the tractor/trailer owned by Santa Clara and operated by GBT with their
consent and knowledge over the interstate highways of Florida.
7 The Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction as the cause of action giving rise to this
exceeds, $50,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
*§§ 48.193(1.a)CL), @) and (6). a ce ws
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon UN ewman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
8 The whole law of the State of Florida governs all aspects of the claim? in addition
to federal regulations applicable to the operation of a CMV.*
9 The Action is not subject to Removal, as there is no complete diversity of
Citizenship or any other basis for exclusive Federal Jurisdiction. Santa Clara and Hernandez are
Florida residents.
General Allegations
10. On May 27, 2023, defendants negligently operated or maintained the tractor/trailer
so as to crash into the vehicle occupied by Plaintiff and his minor daughter, M.M.I.
11 Santa Clara, as its owner, had the right and duty to control the tractor/trailer.
12 GBT, as its operator, also had the right and duty to control the tractor/trailer.
13 Hernandez was the consensual driver of the tractor/trailer at the time of the crash.
14. The vehicle occupied by Plaintiff and his minor daughter, M.M.I., was traveling
eastbound in the right lane of I-10, a distance in front of Hernandez.
15. Hernandez was also traveling eastbound in the right lane of I-10 when he lost
control of the tractor/trailer and crashed into the rear of the vehicle occupied by Plaintiff and his
minor daughter, M.M.I.
16. At the time of the crash, Defendants negligently operated or maintained the
tractor/trailer so as to that it collided with the vehicle in which Plaintiff and M.M.I. occupied.
3 In an Action brought in a Florida Court, the choice-of-law is determined by the law of the state with the most
significant contacts. Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1980).
# 316.302 (1)(b). All owners, operators and drivers of CMVs that are engaged in intrastate commerce are subject to
the rules and regulations contained in certain regulations promulgated by the USDOT and Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration. (MCSA). a . a ce os ws ~
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon UN ewman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
17. As a direct and proximate result of the crash, Plaintiff sustained property damage
for the loss of his truck, his trailer, its contents and personal property.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the crash, Plaintiff suffered bodily injury and
resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,
expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of household services,
and the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The losses are permanent and continuing in nature
and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the crash, M.M.I., suffered bodily injury and
resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,
expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of household services,
and the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The losses are permanent and continuing in nature
and She will suffer the losses in the future.
COUNTI
Hernandez’s Negligence
Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs
one (1) though nineteen (19) above, and alleges further:
20. As the driver of a CMV on the highways of Florida, Hernandez owed a duty to
other drivers around him to use reasonable care in his operation of the tractor/trailer, to drive safely,
maintain an awareness of other traffic, comply with Florida’s Motor Vehicle Statutes and maintain
control over his vehicle.
a ce ws
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon UN ewman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
21 Hernandez breached his aforementioned duties of care in the following manner:
a) by failing to maintain a safe speed for the existing conditions.
b) by failing to maintain a safe following distance for the existing conditions.
c) by failing to maintain a proper lookout.
d)_ by driving while distracted and,
¢e) by other failures to be determined in discovery.
22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence Defendant Hernandez, Plaintiff
for himself and for his minor daughter, suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action
against Defendant Hernandez, and a trial by Jury on all issues triable.
COUNT II
Santa Clara’s Vicarious Liability
Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs
one (1) though twenty-two (22) above, and alleges further:
23. At the time of the crash, Hernandez was an actual or statutory employee° and/or
Agent of Santa Clara, driving its tractor/trailer within the course and scope of his employment.
24. Under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, Santa Clara is vicariously
liable for the negligent acts or omissions of Hernandez while consensually operating its
tractor/trailer.
549 C.F.R. 390.5 and /or 49 U.S.C. § 14102 creates a statutory employer-employee relationship between truck drivers
and motor carriers. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Landstar Sys., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26158, *7 (M.D.
Fla. 2003). a a a . a ce os ws ~
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon UN ewman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
25. Under Florida’s Respondeat Superior Doctrine, Santa Clara is vicariously liable for
the negligent acts or omissions of Hernandez while acting within the course and scope of
employment.
26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence Defendant Hernandez, Plaintiff,
for himself and for his minor daughter, suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action
against Defendant Santa Clara Trucking Solutions Corp., and a trial by Jury on all issues triable.
COUNT III
Vicarious Liability of GBT
Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs
one (1) though twenty-two (22) above, and alleges further:
27. Pursuant to section 316.302(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), Hernandez was also a
statutory employee and/or Agent of GBT, acting within the course and scope of his employment.
28. Under Florida’s Respondeat Superior Doctrine, GBT is vicariously liable for the
negligent acts or omissions of Hernandez while acting within the course and scope of employment.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence Hernandez, Plaintiff, for himself
and for his minor daughter, suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action
against GBT Trucking LLC, and a trial by Jury on all issues triable.
a ce ws
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon UN ewman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
COUNT IV
Negligence of Santa Clara & GBT
Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs
one (1) though nineteen (19) above, and alleges further:
30. As the tractor/trailer’s Operators, Santa Clara and GBT owed a joint duty of care to
ensure safety in the operation of the tractor/trailer being driven in Interstate Commerce on the
public highways of the State of Florida. This includes a duty to use reasonable care in the
maintenance of the tractor/trailer as well as the hiring, training, dispatching, supervision,
employment, and entrustment to Hernandez.
31. Santa Clara and GBT knew, or should have known, that Hernandez was unfit to
drive a commercial tractor/trailer.
32. At the time of the crash, Santa Clara and GBT breached these duties of care in the
following manner or respects:
a) by negligently hiring Hernandez.
b) by negligently training and testing Hernandez.
°). by negligently retaining Hernandez.
d) by negligently entrusting the tractor/trailer to Hernandez.
e) by negligently maintaining or operating the tractor/trailer, and,
c) by negligent acts or omissions to be discovered.
33. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligence of Santa Clara and GBT, Plaintiff
suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above.
. a ce ws
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon UN ewman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action
against Defendants Santa Clara Trucking Solutions Corp. and GBT Trucking LLC, and a trial by
Jury on all issues triable.
NEWMAN LEGAL GROUP, P.A.
is) Cary Hewman
Barry E. Newman, Esq.
Board Certified Attorney
Florida Bar No. 246300
4004 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 355-6000 Telephone
barry@legaljax.com
and,
W. Marc Hardesty, Esq.
Hardesty & Tyde, P.A.
Florida Bar No.: 547054
4004 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 398-2212
hardes jaxlegal.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
~ ws
—shr
‘Complaint
‘eon [Newman Legal Group
RUE ~~ momar
Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al.
i
Preview
Filing # 178678065 E-Filed 08/01/2023 02:24:05 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR COLUMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA. GARY R. IRBY, individually for himself, Case #: and as parent and natural guardian Div: of M.M.I, a minor, Plaintiff, -VS.- MIGUEL ROMERO HERNANDEZ, SANTA CLARA TRUCKING SOLUTIONS CORP., a Florida corporation, and GBT TRUCKING, LLC, a foreign corporation. Defendants. / COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Gary R. Irby, individually for himself, and as parent and natural guardian of M.M.L, a minor, sues Miguel Romero Hernandez (hereinafter, “Hernandez”), Santa Clara Trucking Solutions Corp., a Florida corporation (hereinafter, “Santa Clara”) and GBT Trucking LLC, a foreign corporation (hereinafter, “GBT”), and alleges: Parties and Jurisdictional Allegations This Action arises out of a May 27, 2023 trucking crash in Columbia County. Venue is proper in this Court as the crash occurred in Columbia County.! 3 Plaintiff is a resident of Clay County, Florida. 4 Santa Clara is a Florida corporation doing business as a commercial trucking company from its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material, 1 See Fla. St. §47.011. a ce ws —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon UN ewman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i Electronically Filed Columbia Case # 23000504CAAXMX 08/01/2023 02:24:05 PM Santa Clara owned a commercial motor vehicle (“CMV”) described as 2005 Freightliner tractor, model number ST120 bearing vehicle identification number 1FUJBBCK65LM69499 and Florida tag JD69YK, that was towing a 53-foot trailer (“tractor/trailer”) in Interstate Commerce on Interstate 10 in Columbia County, Florida. 5 GBT is a Texas corporation doing business as a licensed Interstate commercial motor carrier, operating from its principal place of business in Woodville, Texas. At all times material, GBT was a motor carrier operating Santa Clara’s tractor/trailer under the authority of the United States Department of Transportation and under its USDOT certification number 3831431. At all times material, GBT was doing substantial, and not isolated, business in and throughout the State of Florida. This Court has Personal Jurisdiction over GBT pursuant to Florida’s Long-Arm Statute because it committed a tort in Florida.” 6 Hernandez is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material, Hernandez was driving the tractor/trailer owned by Santa Clara and operated by GBT with their consent and knowledge over the interstate highways of Florida. 7 The Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction as the cause of action giving rise to this exceeds, $50,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. *§§ 48.193(1.a)CL), @) and (6). a ce ws —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon UN ewman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i 8 The whole law of the State of Florida governs all aspects of the claim? in addition to federal regulations applicable to the operation of a CMV.* 9 The Action is not subject to Removal, as there is no complete diversity of Citizenship or any other basis for exclusive Federal Jurisdiction. Santa Clara and Hernandez are Florida residents. General Allegations 10. On May 27, 2023, defendants negligently operated or maintained the tractor/trailer so as to crash into the vehicle occupied by Plaintiff and his minor daughter, M.M.I. 11 Santa Clara, as its owner, had the right and duty to control the tractor/trailer. 12 GBT, as its operator, also had the right and duty to control the tractor/trailer. 13 Hernandez was the consensual driver of the tractor/trailer at the time of the crash. 14. The vehicle occupied by Plaintiff and his minor daughter, M.M.I., was traveling eastbound in the right lane of I-10, a distance in front of Hernandez. 15. Hernandez was also traveling eastbound in the right lane of I-10 when he lost control of the tractor/trailer and crashed into the rear of the vehicle occupied by Plaintiff and his minor daughter, M.M.I. 16. At the time of the crash, Defendants negligently operated or maintained the tractor/trailer so as to that it collided with the vehicle in which Plaintiff and M.M.I. occupied. 3 In an Action brought in a Florida Court, the choice-of-law is determined by the law of the state with the most significant contacts. Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1980). # 316.302 (1)(b). All owners, operators and drivers of CMVs that are engaged in intrastate commerce are subject to the rules and regulations contained in certain regulations promulgated by the USDOT and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (MCSA). a . a ce os ws ~ —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon UN ewman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 17. As a direct and proximate result of the crash, Plaintiff sustained property damage for the loss of his truck, his trailer, its contents and personal property. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the crash, Plaintiff suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of household services, and the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The losses are permanent and continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the crash, M.M.I., suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of household services, and the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The losses are permanent and continuing in nature and She will suffer the losses in the future. COUNTI Hernandez’s Negligence Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) though nineteen (19) above, and alleges further: 20. As the driver of a CMV on the highways of Florida, Hernandez owed a duty to other drivers around him to use reasonable care in his operation of the tractor/trailer, to drive safely, maintain an awareness of other traffic, comply with Florida’s Motor Vehicle Statutes and maintain control over his vehicle. a ce ws —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon UN ewman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i 21 Hernandez breached his aforementioned duties of care in the following manner: a) by failing to maintain a safe speed for the existing conditions. b) by failing to maintain a safe following distance for the existing conditions. c) by failing to maintain a proper lookout. d)_ by driving while distracted and, ¢e) by other failures to be determined in discovery. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence Defendant Hernandez, Plaintiff for himself and for his minor daughter, suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action against Defendant Hernandez, and a trial by Jury on all issues triable. COUNT II Santa Clara’s Vicarious Liability Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) though twenty-two (22) above, and alleges further: 23. At the time of the crash, Hernandez was an actual or statutory employee° and/or Agent of Santa Clara, driving its tractor/trailer within the course and scope of his employment. 24. Under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, Santa Clara is vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of Hernandez while consensually operating its tractor/trailer. 549 C.F.R. 390.5 and /or 49 U.S.C. § 14102 creates a statutory employer-employee relationship between truck drivers and motor carriers. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Landstar Sys., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26158, *7 (M.D. Fla. 2003). a a a . a ce os ws ~ —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon UN ewman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i 25. Under Florida’s Respondeat Superior Doctrine, Santa Clara is vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of Hernandez while acting within the course and scope of employment. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence Defendant Hernandez, Plaintiff, for himself and for his minor daughter, suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action against Defendant Santa Clara Trucking Solutions Corp., and a trial by Jury on all issues triable. COUNT III Vicarious Liability of GBT Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) though twenty-two (22) above, and alleges further: 27. Pursuant to section 316.302(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), Hernandez was also a statutory employee and/or Agent of GBT, acting within the course and scope of his employment. 28. Under Florida’s Respondeat Superior Doctrine, GBT is vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of Hernandez while acting within the course and scope of employment. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence Hernandez, Plaintiff, for himself and for his minor daughter, suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action against GBT Trucking LLC, and a trial by Jury on all issues triable. a ce ws —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon UN ewman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i COUNT IV Negligence of Santa Clara & GBT Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, the allegations set forth in paragraphs one (1) though nineteen (19) above, and alleges further: 30. As the tractor/trailer’s Operators, Santa Clara and GBT owed a joint duty of care to ensure safety in the operation of the tractor/trailer being driven in Interstate Commerce on the public highways of the State of Florida. This includes a duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of the tractor/trailer as well as the hiring, training, dispatching, supervision, employment, and entrustment to Hernandez. 31. Santa Clara and GBT knew, or should have known, that Hernandez was unfit to drive a commercial tractor/trailer. 32. At the time of the crash, Santa Clara and GBT breached these duties of care in the following manner or respects: a) by negligently hiring Hernandez. b) by negligently training and testing Hernandez. °). by negligently retaining Hernandez. d) by negligently entrusting the tractor/trailer to Hernandez. e) by negligently maintaining or operating the tractor/trailer, and, c) by negligent acts or omissions to be discovered. 33. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligence of Santa Clara and GBT, Plaintiff suffered the damages set forth in paragraphs 17-19 above. . a ce ws —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon UN ewman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment for his damages and costs of this Action against Defendants Santa Clara Trucking Solutions Corp. and GBT Trucking LLC, and a trial by Jury on all issues triable. NEWMAN LEGAL GROUP, P.A. is) Cary Hewman Barry E. Newman, Esq. Board Certified Attorney Florida Bar No. 246300 4004 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32207 (904) 355-6000 Telephone barry@legaljax.com and, W. Marc Hardesty, Esq. Hardesty & Tyde, P.A. Florida Bar No.: 547054 4004 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32207 (904) 398-2212 hardes jaxlegal.com Counsel for Plaintiff ~ ws —shr ‘Complaint ‘eon [Newman Legal Group RUE ~~ momar Irby -vs- Hernandez, et al. i