Preview
Filing # 134399803 E-Filed 09/10/2021 05:47:06 PM
VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE
State of Florida County of Duval Circuit Court
WUC
Gase Number: 16-2021-CA-004553-XXXX-MA
Plaintiff:
SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND ASHLEY AKIN,
vs.
Defendant:
STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR., UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC,
LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC.
For:
JUSTIN SETH DRACH, ESQUIRE
THOELE/DRACH
7545 CENTURION PARKWAY
SUITE 303
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32256,
Received by COURTESY FLORIDA PROCESS SERVERSon the 31st day of August, 2021 at 11:00 am to
be served on UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By serving CT Corporation Systems as it's statutory
registered agent, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 240, Plantation, FL 33324
1, CARLOS PARDO, do hereby affirm that on the 31st day of August, 2021 at 1:50 pm, I;
CORPORATE: served by delivering a true copy of the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT with the date and
hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to: Donna Mock as Registered Agent at the address of: 1200
S. Pine Island Road, Suite 240, Plantation, FL 33324 on behalf of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
informed said person of the contents therein, In compliance with state statutes.
Under penalty of perjury, | declare that | have read the foregoing affidavit and that the facts stated in it are
true and correct, that | am a sheriff appointed, SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER IN GOOD STANDING for the
in.the county in which service was effected in accordance with Florida Statutes, and have no interest in the
above action pursuant to F.S. 92.525 (2).
ZO f=
CARLOS PARDO
SPS #519
COURTESY FLORIDA PROCESS SERVERS
Payment Center
P.O. Box 40-3621
Miami Beach, FL 33140
(888) 319-3160
Our Job Serial Number: JGS-2021007925
Copyright
© 1992-2021 Datatasa Services, inc. « Process Server's Toolbox V8.2b
ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 09/13/2021 10:39:55 AM.
16-2021-CA-004553-XXXX-MA Div: CV-D
Filing # 133194727 E-Filed 08/23/2021 12:36:17 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL
COUNTY, FLORIDA
SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND CASE NO:
ASHLEY AKIN, DIv:
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR.,
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER,
LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC,
RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and
HINTER-NM, LLC,
Defendants. /
SUMMONS: Service on A Corporate Entity
IMPORTANT
TO: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., c/o Registered Agent, CT Corporation System, 1200 South
Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324
A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on
you to file a written response to the attached Complaint with the clerk of this circuit court, located at: 50]
W. Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response,
including the case number given above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the Court
to hear your side of the case. If you do not file your written response on time, you may lose the case,
and your wages, money, and property may be taken thereafter without further warning from the
Court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not
know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book).
If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response
to the Court, you must also serve a copy of your written response on the party serving this summons at:
Amanda Marie Thoele, Esquire
Plaintiff's Attorney
7545 Centurion Parkway, Suite 303
Jacksonville, Florida 32256
904-306-1355 (facsimile)
manda@thoeledrach.com
Florida Bar No.: 75118
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE:
YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint in this lawsuit on the
above-named Defendant.
ssSITKy
Aug 24
aBs woe
DATED: 2021. JODY PHILLIPS THE, Ginga
8 ‘
CLERK OF THE COURT ‘S
(SEAL) Duval County, Florida
By:
Gioaly ull KK LA\ +f
ty
As Deputy Clerk te Kuessss
ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 08/24/2021 08:42:45 AM
If the party serving summons has designated e-mail address(es) for service or is represented by an
attorney, you may designate e-mail address(es) for service by or on you. Service must be in
accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.
Copies of all court documents in this case, including orders, are available at the Clerk of the Circuit
Court’s office. You may review these documents, upon request.
You must keep the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office notified of your current address. Future
papers in this lawsuit will be served at the address on record at the clerk’s office.
“If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order
to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled at no cost to you, to the
provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator at
ertintr coj.net or (904) 255-1695 at least 7 days before your scheduled court
ppearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time befor
the scheduled _a earance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice
impaired, call 711.”
IMPORTANTE
Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 dias, contados a partir del recibo de esta
notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. Una llamada
telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe presentar su respuesta
por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los nombres de las partes interesadas. Si usted no contesta la
demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado
de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted
consultar a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilamar a una de las oficinas de
asistencia legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica.
Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su respuesta ante
el tribunal, debera usted enviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la persona denominada
abajo como “Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney” (Demandante o Abogado del Demandante).
IMPORTANT
Des poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecu-tifs a partir
de la date de l’assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la plainte ci-jointe aupres de
ce tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger. Vous etes obliges de deposer
votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si
vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le
relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre
saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. II y a d’autres obligations juridiques et vous
pouvez requerir les services immediats d’un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d’avocat, vous pourriez
telephoner a un service de reference d’avocats ou a un bureau d’assistance juridique (figurant a l’annuaire
de telephones).
Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vous faudra egale-ment, en meme
temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre reponse ecrite au
“Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Attorney” (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous.
16-2021-CA-004553-XXXX-MA Div: CV-D
Filing # 133194727 E-Filed 08/23/2021 12:36:17 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND CASE NO:
ASHLEY AKIN, DIV:
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR.,
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER,
LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC,
RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and
HINTER-NM, LLC
Defendants.
/
COMPLAINT — MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COME NOW, the Plaintiffs SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND ASHLEY AKIN,
(hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby sue the
Defendants, STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR, UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC,
RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC, and allege as follows:
1 This is an action for damages which is in excess of $30,000.00 excluding costs and
interest.
2. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the State of Texas, are each over the age of 18,
and otherwise sui juris.
3 At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER was residing in Duval County,
State of Florida, is over the age of 18, and is otherwise sui juris.
ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 08/24/2021 08:42:43 AM
4 At all times material hereto, GERALD WEBSTER, JR. was residing in Duval
County, State of Florida, is over the age of 18, and is otherwise sui juris.
5 At all times material hereto, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC (hereinafter “UBER
TECHNOLOGIES”) was and is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing
business, in the State of Florida.
6 At all times material hereto, RASIER, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability
corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida.
7 At all times material hereto, RASIER-CA, LLC was and is a Delaware limited
liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida.
8. At all times material hereto, RASIER-DC, LLC was and is a Delaware limited
liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida.
9 At all times material hereto, RASIER-PA, LLC was and is a Delaware limited
liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida.
10. At all times material hereto, RASIER-MT, LLC was and is a Delaware limited
liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida.
11. At all times material hereto, HINTER-NM, LLC was and is a Delaware limited
liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida.
12. At all times material hereto, RASTER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC,
LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC were wholly owned
subsidiaries of UBER TECHNOLOGIES.
13. At all times material hereto, UBER TECHNOLOGIES and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC,
Page 2 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC, (hereinafter collectively “UBER”) operated a
transportation service that contracts with individuals to drive for UBER using the contractors’ own
motor vehicles.
14. On August 18, 2018, STEVEN WEBSTER was driving a 2014 Honda Civic,
License Plate 133XGI, with vehicle identification number 19XFB2F54EE008653.
15. While driving the vehicle on said date, STEVEN WEBSTER was attempting to
make a left-hand turn across Duval Road to enter to on ramp to Interstate 95 North, in the City of
Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.
16. At all relevant times, STEVEN WEBSTER was a permissive driver of said
vehicle, which was owned by GERALD WEBSTER, JR.
17. At all relevant times, STEVEN WEBSTER was operating said vehicle as an agent
or employee of UBER and was acting within the course and scope of his employment with
UBER, and in furtherance of UBER’s interests.
18. On August 18, 2018, Plaintiffs arrived at Jacksonville International Airport for a
family vacation.
19. On said date, Plaintiffs utilized the application offered by UBER to hire a driver
to transport them to their hotel.
20. In response to Plaintiffs’ request on the UBER application, STEVEN WEBSTER,
arrived at Jacksonville International Airport to transport Plaintiffs to their hotel as an agent or
employee of UBER and was acting within the course and scope of his employment with UBER,
and in furtherance of UBER’s interests.
Page 3 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
21. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were restrained passengers in said vehicle being
driven by STEVEN WEBSTER.
22. At that time and place, STEVEN WEBSTER negligently operated said vehicle, to
wit: failing to yield to oncoming traffic while making a left-hand turn and causing a multi car
accident.
COUNTI
NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST STEVEN WEBSTER
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
23. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
24. STEVEN WEBSTER breached that duty in one or more of the following non-
exclusive manners:
a. Negligently failing to maintain a proper lookout;
b Negligently entering the intersection without being able to see oncoming
traffic;
c. Negligently failing to maintain his normal faculties;
d Negligently driving while distracted.
25. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
Page 4 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
COUNT
VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
26. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
27. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
Page 5 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
28. UBER TECHNOLOGIES is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence
because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course
and scope of his employment with UBER TECHNOLOGIES, and in furtherance of UBER
TECHNOLOGIES’ interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b. Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
COUNT IIT
VI ‘ARI LIABILITY AGAINST RASTER, LL
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
29. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
30. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
Page 6 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
31. RASIER, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time
of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with RASIER, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER, LLC’s interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
COUNT IV
VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST RASTER-CA, LLC
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
Page 7 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
32. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
33. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
34. RASIER-CA, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the
time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with RASIER-CA, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-CA, LLC’s interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Page 8 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
¢e. Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
J
VI ‘ARI LIABILITY AGAT T RASTER-DC, LL
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
35. At all times material hereto. STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
36. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
37. RASIER-DC, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the
time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with RASIER-DC, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-DC, LLC’s interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
Page 9 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
COUNT VI
VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST RASTER-PA, LLC
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
38. At all times material hereto. STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
39. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
Page 10 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
40. RASIER-PA, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the
time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with RASIER-PA, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-PA, LLC’s interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b. Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate
J
VI ‘ARI LIABILITY AGAINST RASIER-MT, LL
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
Al. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
42. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
Page 11 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
43. RASIER-MT, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the
time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with RASIER-MT, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-MT, LLC’s interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate
COUNT VII
VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST HINTER-NM. LLC
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
44. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise
reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle.
45. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
Page 12 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
46. HINTER-NM, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the
time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with HINTER-NM, LLC and in furtherance of HINTER-NM, LLC’s interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b. Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
COUNT IX
NEGLIGENT HIRING AGA: T UBER TECHN! L TES. IN
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
47. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when
hiring its employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER.
48. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the
prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history,
investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job
Page 13 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil actions, if relevant; obtaining from the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles a check of the
information as reported, as well as acting as a reasonably prudent employer when hiring a
prospective employee.
49. UBER TECHNOLOGIES knew or should have known that absent such reasonable
investigation, a dangerous condition would exist to the public who became passengers of
STEVEN WEBSTER through the use of the application offered by UBER TECHNOLOGIES.
50. UBER TECHNOLOGIES breached this duty by:
a. Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s driving license
and prior driving record;
b Negligently failing to determine whether STEVEN WEBSTER was
qualified to drive his vehicle and transport passengers;
c. Negligently failing to do an adequate background investigation;
d Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s relevant medical
history.
Sl. Had UBER TECHNOLOGIES made an appropriate and reasonable investigation at
the time of hiring STEVEN WEBSTER, they would have been on notice either to investigate
further, or it would have been actual or constructive notice that all owing STEVEN WEBSTER to
work as an Uber driver was reasonably likely to result in harm to the public.
52. As a result of UBER TECHNOLOGIES’ negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
Page 14 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b. Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
NT X
NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST RASIER, LLC
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
53. RASIER, LLC owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when hiring its
employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER.
54. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the
prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history,
investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job
Page 15 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil actions, if relevant; obtaining from the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles a check of the
information as reported, as well as acting as a reasonably prudent employer when hiring a
prospective employee.
55. RASIER, LLC knew or should have known that absent such reasonable
investigation, a dangerous condition would exist to the public who became passengers of
STEVEN WEBSTER through the use of the application offered by RASTER, LLC.
56. RASIER, LLC breached this duty by:
a. Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s driving license
and prior driving record;
b Negligently failing to determine whether STEVEN WEBSTER was
qualified to drive his vehicle and transport passengers;
c. Negligently failing to do an adequate background investigation;
d Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s relevant medical
history.
37. Had RASIER, LLC made an appropriate and reasonable investigation at the time
of hiring STEVEN WEBSTER, they would have been on notice either to investigate further, or it
would have been actual or constructive notice that all owing STEVEN WEBSTER to work as an
Uber driver was reasonably likely to result in harm to the public.
58. As a result of RASIER, LLC’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly,
and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been
permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and
Page 16 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation
of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence,
Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish,
inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future.
Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity.
Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for
doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b. Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
COUNT XI
NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST RASIER-CA. LLC
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
59. RASIER-CA, LLC owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when hiring its
employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER.
60. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the
prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history,
investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job
Page 17 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil actions, if relevant; obtaining from the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles a check of the
information as reported, as well as acting as a reasonably prudent employer when hiring a
prospective employee.
61. RASIER-CA, LLC knew or should have known that absent such reasonable
investigation, a dangerous condition would exist to the public who became passengers of
STEVEN WEBSTER through the use of the application offered by RASIER-CA, LLC.
62. RASIER-CA, LLC breached this duty by:
a. Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s driving license
and prior driving record;
b Negligently failing to determine whether STEVEN WEBSTER was
qualified to drive his vehicle and transport passengers;
c. Negligently failing to do an adequate background investigation;
d Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s relevant medical
history.
63. Had RASIER-CA, LLC made an appropriate and reasonable investigation at the
time of hiring STEVEN WEBSTER, they would have been on notice either to investigate
further, or it would have been actual or constructive notice that all owing STEVEN WEBSTER to
work as an Uber driver was reasonably likely to result in harm to the public.
64. As a result of RASIER-CA, LLC’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely,
significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and
have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant
Page 18 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent
aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s
negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment,
mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer
in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning
capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money
for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to
alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or
continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for:
a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000;
b. Costs of suit;
Prejudgment interest where applicable;
Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate.
COUNT XII
NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST RASIER-DC, LLC
Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
65. RASIER-DC, LLC owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when hiring its
employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER.
66. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the
prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history,
investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job
Page 19 of 38
Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al.
Complaint
application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil a
Preview
Filing # 134399803 E-Filed 09/10/2021 05:47:06 PM VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE State of Florida County of Duval Circuit Court WUC Gase Number: 16-2021-CA-004553-XXXX-MA Plaintiff: SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND ASHLEY AKIN, vs. Defendant: STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR., UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC. For: JUSTIN SETH DRACH, ESQUIRE THOELE/DRACH 7545 CENTURION PARKWAY SUITE 303 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32256, Received by COURTESY FLORIDA PROCESS SERVERSon the 31st day of August, 2021 at 11:00 am to be served on UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By serving CT Corporation Systems as it's statutory registered agent, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 240, Plantation, FL 33324 1, CARLOS PARDO, do hereby affirm that on the 31st day of August, 2021 at 1:50 pm, I; CORPORATE: served by delivering a true copy of the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to: Donna Mock as Registered Agent at the address of: 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 240, Plantation, FL 33324 on behalf of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and informed said person of the contents therein, In compliance with state statutes. Under penalty of perjury, | declare that | have read the foregoing affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true and correct, that | am a sheriff appointed, SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER IN GOOD STANDING for the in.the county in which service was effected in accordance with Florida Statutes, and have no interest in the above action pursuant to F.S. 92.525 (2). ZO f= CARLOS PARDO SPS #519 COURTESY FLORIDA PROCESS SERVERS Payment Center P.O. Box 40-3621 Miami Beach, FL 33140 (888) 319-3160 Our Job Serial Number: JGS-2021007925 Copyright © 1992-2021 Datatasa Services, inc. « Process Server's Toolbox V8.2b ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 09/13/2021 10:39:55 AM. 16-2021-CA-004553-XXXX-MA Div: CV-D Filing # 133194727 E-Filed 08/23/2021 12:36:17 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND CASE NO: ASHLEY AKIN, DIv: Plaintiff, vs. STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR., UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC, Defendants. / SUMMONS: Service on A Corporate Entity IMPORTANT TO: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., c/o Registered Agent, CT Corporation System, 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324 A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you to file a written response to the attached Complaint with the clerk of this circuit court, located at: 50] W. Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the case. If you do not file your written response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and property may be taken thereafter without further warning from the Court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book). If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the Court, you must also serve a copy of your written response on the party serving this summons at: Amanda Marie Thoele, Esquire Plaintiff's Attorney 7545 Centurion Parkway, Suite 303 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 904-306-1355 (facsimile) manda@thoeledrach.com Florida Bar No.: 75118 THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint in this lawsuit on the above-named Defendant. ssSITKy Aug 24 aBs woe DATED: 2021. JODY PHILLIPS THE, Ginga 8 ‘ CLERK OF THE COURT ‘S (SEAL) Duval County, Florida By: Gioaly ull KK LA\ +f ty As Deputy Clerk te Kuessss ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 08/24/2021 08:42:45 AM If the party serving summons has designated e-mail address(es) for service or is represented by an attorney, you may designate e-mail address(es) for service by or on you. Service must be in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516. Copies of all court documents in this case, including orders, are available at the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office. You may review these documents, upon request. You must keep the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office notified of your current address. Future papers in this lawsuit will be served at the address on record at the clerk’s office. “If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator at ertintr coj.net or (904) 255-1695 at least 7 days before your scheduled court ppearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time befor the scheduled _a earance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.” IMPORTANTE Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 dias, contados a partir del recibo de esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe presentar su respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los nombres de las partes interesadas. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. Existen otros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica. Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su respuesta ante el tribunal, debera usted enviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la persona denominada abajo como “Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney” (Demandante o Abogado del Demandante). IMPORTANT Des poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecu-tifs a partir de la date de l’assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. Un simple coup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger. Vous etes obliges de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. II y a d’autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats d’un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d’avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de reference d’avocats ou a un bureau d’assistance juridique (figurant a l’annuaire de telephones). Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vous faudra egale-ment, en meme temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre reponse ecrite au “Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Attorney” (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous. 16-2021-CA-004553-XXXX-MA Div: CV-D Filing # 133194727 E-Filed 08/23/2021 12:36:17 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND CASE NO: ASHLEY AKIN, DIV: Plaintiffs, Vv. STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR., UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC Defendants. / COMPLAINT — MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COME NOW, the Plaintiffs SCOTT AKIN, STACEY AKIN, AND ASHLEY AKIN, (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby sue the Defendants, STEVEN WEBSTER, GERALD WEBSTER, JR, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC, and allege as follows: 1 This is an action for damages which is in excess of $30,000.00 excluding costs and interest. 2. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the State of Texas, are each over the age of 18, and otherwise sui juris. 3 At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER was residing in Duval County, State of Florida, is over the age of 18, and is otherwise sui juris. ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 08/24/2021 08:42:43 AM 4 At all times material hereto, GERALD WEBSTER, JR. was residing in Duval County, State of Florida, is over the age of 18, and is otherwise sui juris. 5 At all times material hereto, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC (hereinafter “UBER TECHNOLOGIES”) was and is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida. 6 At all times material hereto, RASIER, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida. 7 At all times material hereto, RASIER-CA, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida. 8. At all times material hereto, RASIER-DC, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida. 9 At all times material hereto, RASIER-PA, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida. 10. At all times material hereto, RASIER-MT, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida. 11. At all times material hereto, HINTER-NM, LLC was and is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to do business, and in fact doing business, in the State of Florida. 12. At all times material hereto, RASTER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC were wholly owned subsidiaries of UBER TECHNOLOGIES. 13. At all times material hereto, UBER TECHNOLOGIES and its wholly owned subsidiaries, RASIER, LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, Page 2 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint RASIER-MT, LLC, and HINTER-NM, LLC, (hereinafter collectively “UBER”) operated a transportation service that contracts with individuals to drive for UBER using the contractors’ own motor vehicles. 14. On August 18, 2018, STEVEN WEBSTER was driving a 2014 Honda Civic, License Plate 133XGI, with vehicle identification number 19XFB2F54EE008653. 15. While driving the vehicle on said date, STEVEN WEBSTER was attempting to make a left-hand turn across Duval Road to enter to on ramp to Interstate 95 North, in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. 16. At all relevant times, STEVEN WEBSTER was a permissive driver of said vehicle, which was owned by GERALD WEBSTER, JR. 17. At all relevant times, STEVEN WEBSTER was operating said vehicle as an agent or employee of UBER and was acting within the course and scope of his employment with UBER, and in furtherance of UBER’s interests. 18. On August 18, 2018, Plaintiffs arrived at Jacksonville International Airport for a family vacation. 19. On said date, Plaintiffs utilized the application offered by UBER to hire a driver to transport them to their hotel. 20. In response to Plaintiffs’ request on the UBER application, STEVEN WEBSTER, arrived at Jacksonville International Airport to transport Plaintiffs to their hotel as an agent or employee of UBER and was acting within the course and scope of his employment with UBER, and in furtherance of UBER’s interests. Page 3 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint 21. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were restrained passengers in said vehicle being driven by STEVEN WEBSTER. 22. At that time and place, STEVEN WEBSTER negligently operated said vehicle, to wit: failing to yield to oncoming traffic while making a left-hand turn and causing a multi car accident. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE AGAINST STEVEN WEBSTER Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 23. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 24. STEVEN WEBSTER breached that duty in one or more of the following non- exclusive manners: a. Negligently failing to maintain a proper lookout; b Negligently entering the intersection without being able to see oncoming traffic; c. Negligently failing to maintain his normal faculties; d Negligently driving while distracted. 25. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, Page 4 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 26. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 27. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, Page 5 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. 28. UBER TECHNOLOGIES is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his employment with UBER TECHNOLOGIES, and in furtherance of UBER TECHNOLOGIES’ interests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b. Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT IIT VI ‘ARI LIABILITY AGAINST RASTER, LL Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 29. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 30. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and Page 6 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. 31. RASIER, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his employment with RASIER, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER, LLC’s interests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT IV VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST RASTER-CA, LLC Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein. Page 7 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint 32. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 33. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. 34. RASIER-CA, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his employment with RASIER-CA, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-CA, LLC’s interests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Page 8 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint ¢e. Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. J VI ‘ARI LIABILITY AGAT T RASTER-DC, LL Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 35. At all times material hereto. STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 36. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. 37. RASIER-DC, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his employment with RASIER-DC, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-DC, LLC’s interests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; Page 9 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT VI VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST RASTER-PA, LLC Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 38. At all times material hereto. STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 39. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. Page 10 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint 40. RASIER-PA, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his employment with RASIER-PA, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-PA, LLC’s interests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b. Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate J VI ‘ARI LIABILITY AGAINST RASIER-MT, LL Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein. Al. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 42. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money Page 11 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. 43. RASIER-MT, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his employment with RASIER-MT, LLC and in furtherance of RASIER-MT, LLC’s interests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate COUNT VII VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST HINTER-NM. LLC Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 44. At all times material hereto, STEVEN WEBSTER had a duty to exercise reasonable, ordinary, and due care while operating the aforementioned vehicle. 45. As a result of STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, Page 12 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. 46. HINTER-NM, LLC is liable for STEVEN WEBSTER’s negligence because at the time of the subject accident, STEVEN WEBSTER was acting within the course and scope of his employment with HINTER-NM, LLC and in furtherance of HINTER-NM, LLC’s interests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b. Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT IX NEGLIGENT HIRING AGA: T UBER TECHN! L TES. IN Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 47. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when hiring its employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER. 48. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history, investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job Page 13 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil actions, if relevant; obtaining from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles a check of the information as reported, as well as acting as a reasonably prudent employer when hiring a prospective employee. 49. UBER TECHNOLOGIES knew or should have known that absent such reasonable investigation, a dangerous condition would exist to the public who became passengers of STEVEN WEBSTER through the use of the application offered by UBER TECHNOLOGIES. 50. UBER TECHNOLOGIES breached this duty by: a. Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s driving license and prior driving record; b Negligently failing to determine whether STEVEN WEBSTER was qualified to drive his vehicle and transport passengers; c. Negligently failing to do an adequate background investigation; d Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s relevant medical history. Sl. Had UBER TECHNOLOGIES made an appropriate and reasonable investigation at the time of hiring STEVEN WEBSTER, they would have been on notice either to investigate further, or it would have been actual or constructive notice that all owing STEVEN WEBSTER to work as an Uber driver was reasonably likely to result in harm to the public. 52. As a result of UBER TECHNOLOGIES’ negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant Page 14 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b. Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. NT X NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST RASIER, LLC Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs | through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 53. RASIER, LLC owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when hiring its employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER. 54. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history, investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job Page 15 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil actions, if relevant; obtaining from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles a check of the information as reported, as well as acting as a reasonably prudent employer when hiring a prospective employee. 55. RASIER, LLC knew or should have known that absent such reasonable investigation, a dangerous condition would exist to the public who became passengers of STEVEN WEBSTER through the use of the application offered by RASTER, LLC. 56. RASIER, LLC breached this duty by: a. Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s driving license and prior driving record; b Negligently failing to determine whether STEVEN WEBSTER was qualified to drive his vehicle and transport passengers; c. Negligently failing to do an adequate background investigation; d Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s relevant medical history. 37. Had RASIER, LLC made an appropriate and reasonable investigation at the time of hiring STEVEN WEBSTER, they would have been on notice either to investigate further, or it would have been actual or constructive notice that all owing STEVEN WEBSTER to work as an Uber driver was reasonably likely to result in harm to the public. 58. As a result of RASIER, LLC’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant and Page 16 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b. Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT XI NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST RASIER-CA. LLC Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 59. RASIER-CA, LLC owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when hiring its employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER. 60. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history, investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job Page 17 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil actions, if relevant; obtaining from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida Department of Motor Vehicles a check of the information as reported, as well as acting as a reasonably prudent employer when hiring a prospective employee. 61. RASIER-CA, LLC knew or should have known that absent such reasonable investigation, a dangerous condition would exist to the public who became passengers of STEVEN WEBSTER through the use of the application offered by RASIER-CA, LLC. 62. RASIER-CA, LLC breached this duty by: a. Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s driving license and prior driving record; b Negligently failing to determine whether STEVEN WEBSTER was qualified to drive his vehicle and transport passengers; c. Negligently failing to do an adequate background investigation; d Negligently failing to investigate STEVEN WEBSTER’s relevant medical history. 63. Had RASIER-CA, LLC made an appropriate and reasonable investigation at the time of hiring STEVEN WEBSTER, they would have been on notice either to investigate further, or it would have been actual or constructive notice that all owing STEVEN WEBSTER to work as an Uber driver was reasonably likely to result in harm to the public. 64. As a result of RASIER-CA, LLC’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely, significantly, and permanently injured within a reasonable degree of medical probability and have been permanently and significantly scarred and/or disfigured; have incurred a significant Page 18 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint and permanent loss of bodily functions; and/or have sustained a significant and permanent aggravation of a pre-existing injury. As a further direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs suffered extreme pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and will so suffer in the future. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future suffer lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have in the past and will in the future be obligated to pay large sums of money for doctors’ bills, hospital bills and other directly and indirectly related expenses in an effort to alleviate his suffering and cure their injuries. All of Plaintiffs’ losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for: a. Judgment against Defendants for damages in excess of $30,000; b. Costs of suit; Prejudgment interest where applicable; Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and Such other relief as this court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT XII NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST RASIER-DC, LLC Plaintiffs re-allege and re-aver paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 65. RASIER-DC, LLC owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs when hiring its employees, including STEVEN WEBSTER. 66. That duty included the duty to conduct reasonable background investigation of the prospective employee, including but not limited to: confirming a verifiable driving history, investigating relevant medical history, contacting former employers; providing a detailed job Page 19 of 38 Akins v. Webster, Webster, Uber, et al. Complaint application pertaining to prior criminal convictions and civil a