Preview
DATE FILED: January 12, 2024 12:24 PM
DISTRICT COURT, MONTROSE COUNTY, FILING ID: 56CA72FFD5174
COLORADO CASE NUMBER: 2024CV30005
Court Address: 1200 North Grand Avenue, Bin A
Montrose, CO 81401
SUZETTE WILLIAMS, as next friend of DEREK
WHITAKER, minor child,
Plaintiff, ▲COURT USE ONLY▲
-versus-
HECTOR LARA and YVONNE MUZZY as next friend
of ANDRES PEREZ, minor child,
and
HECTOR LARA,
and
YVONNE MUZZY,
Defendant.
Counsels for Plaintiff:
Joseph Moulton, Reg. No. 56907
DezaRae D. LaCrue, Reg. No. 40290 Case No.:
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue Division:
Aurora, Colorado 80014
Phone:(303) 757-3300
Fax: (303) 759-5203
E-Mail: moultonj@fdazar.com
E-Mail: lacrued@fdazar.com
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Suzette Williams on behalf of her minor child, Derek Whitaker, by and through
their attorneys, Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C., for their Complaint against the Defendant,
Page 1 of 7
states and alleges as follows:
I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Suzette Williams, on behalf of her minor child, Derek Whitaker, is an
individual and resident of Montrose County, State of Colorado.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Andres Perez, a minor child, hereinafter
“Defendant Perez” is an individual and, at the time of the collision, was a resident of
Montrose County.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Yvonne Muzzy, hereinafter “Defendant
Muzzy” is an individual and, at the time of the collision, was a resident of Montrose
County.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hector Lara, hereinafter “Defendant Lara”
is an individual and, at the time of the collision, was a resident of Montrose County.
5. Jurisdiction is proper in this action pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-1-124 because the incident
underlying this cause of action occurred in the State of Colorado.
6. Venue is proper in this action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98 (c)(1) because Defendant Perez,
upon information and belief, resides in Montrose County, State of Colorado.
II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. The collision at issue in this case occurred on October 1, 2022.
8. The collision occurred at approximately 9:40 pm.
9. The collision occurred on a Saturday.
10. The collision occurred at or near the intersection of 5600 Road and Highway 348.
11. On October 1, 2022, the Plaintiff was a passenger in a 2008 Chrysler Aspen.
12. Immediately before the collision occurred, the 2008 Chrysler Aspen in which Plaintiff
was present was traveling north on County Road 5600 approaching the intersection
with Highway 348.
13. Defendant Perez was driving the vehicle Plaintiff was a passenger in.
14. Defendant Muzzy owned the vehicle Defendant Perez drove when the collision
occurred.
15. Defendant Lara insured, owned, and/or had control over the vehicle Defendant Perez
was operating.
Page 2 of 7
16. Defendant Perez failed to stop striking the vehicle of Stephen Beach.
17. The front-end of Defendant Perez’s vehicle collided into the front of Stephen Beach’s
vehicle.
18. The vehicle Defendant Perez and Plaintiff were in incurred severe damage.
19. The road in the area of the collision was straight and on-level.
20. The road in the area of the collision was dry.
21. The road in the area of the collision was not icy.
22. The road in the area of the collision was not snowy.
23. There were no adverse road conditions that caused or contributed to the cause of the
collision.
24. There were no adverse weather conditions that caused or contributed to causing the
collision.
25. The investigating officer determined that Defendant drove carelessly at the time of the
collision.
26. Defendant Perez drove carelessly at the time of the collision.
27. The investigating officer determined that Defendant Perez drove while intoxicated.
28. Defendant Perez drove while intoxicated.
29. The investigating officer determined that Defendant’s careless driving contributed to
the cause of the collision.
30. Defendant Perez’s careless driving caused or contributed to causing the collision.
31. Plaintiff was properly using his shoulder and lap belt when the collision occurred.
32. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages from the collision.
33. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages may include by are not limited to physical injuries, past
and future damages, physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of
life, mental anguish, medical bills, permanency and/or impairment in amounts to be
determined at the time of trial.
34. Plaintiff’s injuries required him to be transported to Children’s Hospital in Denver via
Colorado Flight for Life.
35. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to drive his car safely.
36. Defendant Perez failed to drive safely at the time of the collision.
37. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to pay adequate
attention to traffic conditions around him.
Page 3 of 7
38. Defendant Perez failed to pay adequate attention to traffic conditions around him.
39. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to see what reasonably
should have been seen in the exercise of due regard.
40. Defendant Perez did not reasonably see Mr. Beach or his vehicle.
41. Nothing obstructed Defendant Perez’s view of the stopped traffic ahead of him when
the collision occurred.
42. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to act as a reasonable
driver would act in the circumstances then-existing.
43. Defendant Perez did not act as a reasonable driver would have acted under the
circumstances existing just prior to and at the time of the collision.
44. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to maintain a proper
lookout to see what he could and should have seen in the exercise of reasonable care.
45. Defendant Perez failed to maintain a proper lookout and see the stop sign ahead of him
on northbound Highway 348.
46. Defendant Perez drove carelessly at the time of the collision.
47. Defendant Perez accepts responsibility for the collision.
48. Defendant Perez accepts responsibility for causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
49. Defendant Perez’s careless driving caused injuries, damages, and losses to Plaintiff,
described more fully above.
50. Defendant Muzzy knew or should have known that Defendant Perez had the tendency
to drive recklessly.
51. Defendant Lara knew that Defendant Perez had the tendency to drive recklessly.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence)
Derek Whitaker v. Andres Perez
52. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though set forth fully herein.
53. The collision involving Plaintiff was caused by the negligence of Defendant Perez.
54. Defendant Perez had a duty to drive his vehicle with reasonable care under the
circumstances then-existing.
55. Defendant Perez owed a duty of reasonable care to his fellow drivers and the passengers
of those drivers, including Plaintiff.
56. Defendant Perez breached his duty of care as more fully described above.
Page 4 of 7
57. As a direct and proximate and foreseeable result of Defendant Perez’s negligence
Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and future
physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish,
medical bills, hospital bills, health care provider bills, permanency and impairment in
amounts to be determined at the time of trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence Per Se)
Derek Whitaker v. Andres Perez
58. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein.
59. In the course of the motor vehicle collision described above, Defendant Perez
violated one or more of the following statutes: C.R.S. § 42-4-1402, Careless driving;
C.R.S. § 42-4-1401, Reckless driving; C.R.S. § 18-3-205(1)(b)(l) Driving while
intoxicated causing serious bodily injury to another; and C.R.S. § 42-4-1301 Driving
while Intoxicated.
60. Plaintiff is a member of the class of persons these statutes are intended to protect.
61. The purpose of these statutes is to protect against the type of injuries or losses that
Plaintiff sustained.
62. The above-described actions of Defendant Perez constitute negligence per se.
63. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence per se of Defendant
Perez, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and
future physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, mental
anguish, medical bills, hospital bills, health care provider bills, permanency and
impairment in amounts to be determined at the time of trial.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligent Entrustment)
Derek Whitaker v. Yvonne Muzzy
64. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein.
65. On the occasion in question, Defendant Muzzy negligently entrusted the vehicle in
question to Defendant Perez.
66. Defendant Muzzy either knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known
that Defendant Perez was a reckless, careless, and incompetent driver.
Page 5 of 7
67. Defendant Muzzy was, therefore, negligent in entrusting the vehicle to Defendant Perez
on the occasion in question.
68. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence of Defendant Muzzy,
Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of
life, medical, hospital, doctor bills, loss of earnings and earning capacity, permanent
impairment and property damages in amounts to be determined at the time of trial.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Family Car Doctrine)
Derek Whitaker v. Yvonne Muzzy
69. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein.
70. Upon information and belief, Defendant Muzzy is “head of the household” as that
term is interpreted within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine and Defendant
Perez is a legal resident of Defendant Muzzy’s household.
71. The automobile that Defendant Perez was driving on the occasion in question was
owned by Defendant Muzzy and made available by Defendant Muzzy to Defendant
Perez as a member of the household within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine.
72. Pursuant to the Family Car Doctrine, Defendant Muzzy is responsible at law for the
injuries, damages, and losses sustained by Plaintiff and caused by the tortious conduct
of Defendant Perez on the occasion in question.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligent Entrustment)
Derek Whitaker v. Hector Lara
73. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein.
74. On the occasion in question, Defendant Lara negligently entrusted the vehicle in
question to Defendant Perez.
75. Defendant Lara either knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known
that Defendant Perez was a reckless, careless, and incompetent driver.
76. Defendant Lara was, therefore, negligent in entrusting the vehicle to Defendant Perez
on the occasion in question.
Page 6 of 7
77. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence of Defendant Lara,
Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of
life, medical, hospital, doctor bills, loss of earnings and earning capacity, permanent
impairment and property damages in amounts to be determined at the time of trial.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Family Car Doctrine)
Derek Whitaker v. Hector Lara
78. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein.
79. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lara is “head of the household” as that term
is interpreted within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine and Defendant Perez is a
legal resident of Defendant Lara’s household.
80. The automobile that Defendant Perez was driving on the occasion in question was
owned by Defendant Lara and made available by Defendant Lara to Defendant Perez
as a member of the household within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine.
81. Pursuant to the Family Car Doctrine, Defendant Lara is responsible at law for the
injuries, damages, and losses sustained by Plaintiff and caused by the tortious conduct
of Defendant Perez on the occasion in question.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against
Defendants and in his favor for actual damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial,
pre-judgment interest from the date of the collision, post-judgment interest, costs, expert witness
fees, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.
Respectfully, submitted on this 12th day of January, 2024.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: /s/ Joseph C. Moulton
Joseph C. Moulton, Reg. No. 56907
Dezarae LaCrue, Reg. No. 40290
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff’s Address:
130 S West 2nd Street
Olathe, CO 81425
In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121, §1-26(9), a printed copy of this document with original signatures is being maintained by the filing party and
will be made available for inspection by other parties or the Court upon request.
Page 7 of 7
Preview
DATE FILED: January 12, 2024 12:24 PM DISTRICT COURT, MONTROSE COUNTY, FILING ID: 56CA72FFD5174 COLORADO CASE NUMBER: 2024CV30005 Court Address: 1200 North Grand Avenue, Bin A Montrose, CO 81401 SUZETTE WILLIAMS, as next friend of DEREK WHITAKER, minor child, Plaintiff, ▲COURT USE ONLY▲ -versus- HECTOR LARA and YVONNE MUZZY as next friend of ANDRES PEREZ, minor child, and HECTOR LARA, and YVONNE MUZZY, Defendant. Counsels for Plaintiff: Joseph Moulton, Reg. No. 56907 DezaRae D. LaCrue, Reg. No. 40290 Case No.: FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Division: Aurora, Colorado 80014 Phone:(303) 757-3300 Fax: (303) 759-5203 E-Mail: moultonj@fdazar.com E-Mail: lacrued@fdazar.com COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Suzette Williams on behalf of her minor child, Derek Whitaker, by and through their attorneys, Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C., for their Complaint against the Defendant, Page 1 of 7 states and alleges as follows: I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Suzette Williams, on behalf of her minor child, Derek Whitaker, is an individual and resident of Montrose County, State of Colorado. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Andres Perez, a minor child, hereinafter “Defendant Perez” is an individual and, at the time of the collision, was a resident of Montrose County. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Yvonne Muzzy, hereinafter “Defendant Muzzy” is an individual and, at the time of the collision, was a resident of Montrose County. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hector Lara, hereinafter “Defendant Lara” is an individual and, at the time of the collision, was a resident of Montrose County. 5. Jurisdiction is proper in this action pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-1-124 because the incident underlying this cause of action occurred in the State of Colorado. 6. Venue is proper in this action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98 (c)(1) because Defendant Perez, upon information and belief, resides in Montrose County, State of Colorado. II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. The collision at issue in this case occurred on October 1, 2022. 8. The collision occurred at approximately 9:40 pm. 9. The collision occurred on a Saturday. 10. The collision occurred at or near the intersection of 5600 Road and Highway 348. 11. On October 1, 2022, the Plaintiff was a passenger in a 2008 Chrysler Aspen. 12. Immediately before the collision occurred, the 2008 Chrysler Aspen in which Plaintiff was present was traveling north on County Road 5600 approaching the intersection with Highway 348. 13. Defendant Perez was driving the vehicle Plaintiff was a passenger in. 14. Defendant Muzzy owned the vehicle Defendant Perez drove when the collision occurred. 15. Defendant Lara insured, owned, and/or had control over the vehicle Defendant Perez was operating. Page 2 of 7 16. Defendant Perez failed to stop striking the vehicle of Stephen Beach. 17. The front-end of Defendant Perez’s vehicle collided into the front of Stephen Beach’s vehicle. 18. The vehicle Defendant Perez and Plaintiff were in incurred severe damage. 19. The road in the area of the collision was straight and on-level. 20. The road in the area of the collision was dry. 21. The road in the area of the collision was not icy. 22. The road in the area of the collision was not snowy. 23. There were no adverse road conditions that caused or contributed to the cause of the collision. 24. There were no adverse weather conditions that caused or contributed to causing the collision. 25. The investigating officer determined that Defendant drove carelessly at the time of the collision. 26. Defendant Perez drove carelessly at the time of the collision. 27. The investigating officer determined that Defendant Perez drove while intoxicated. 28. Defendant Perez drove while intoxicated. 29. The investigating officer determined that Defendant’s careless driving contributed to the cause of the collision. 30. Defendant Perez’s careless driving caused or contributed to causing the collision. 31. Plaintiff was properly using his shoulder and lap belt when the collision occurred. 32. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages from the collision. 33. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages may include by are not limited to physical injuries, past and future damages, physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, medical bills, permanency and/or impairment in amounts to be determined at the time of trial. 34. Plaintiff’s injuries required him to be transported to Children’s Hospital in Denver via Colorado Flight for Life. 35. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to drive his car safely. 36. Defendant Perez failed to drive safely at the time of the collision. 37. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to pay adequate attention to traffic conditions around him. Page 3 of 7 38. Defendant Perez failed to pay adequate attention to traffic conditions around him. 39. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to see what reasonably should have been seen in the exercise of due regard. 40. Defendant Perez did not reasonably see Mr. Beach or his vehicle. 41. Nothing obstructed Defendant Perez’s view of the stopped traffic ahead of him when the collision occurred. 42. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to act as a reasonable driver would act in the circumstances then-existing. 43. Defendant Perez did not act as a reasonable driver would have acted under the circumstances existing just prior to and at the time of the collision. 44. As a driver licensed in Colorado, Defendant Perez was supposed to maintain a proper lookout to see what he could and should have seen in the exercise of reasonable care. 45. Defendant Perez failed to maintain a proper lookout and see the stop sign ahead of him on northbound Highway 348. 46. Defendant Perez drove carelessly at the time of the collision. 47. Defendant Perez accepts responsibility for the collision. 48. Defendant Perez accepts responsibility for causing Plaintiff’s injuries. 49. Defendant Perez’s careless driving caused injuries, damages, and losses to Plaintiff, described more fully above. 50. Defendant Muzzy knew or should have known that Defendant Perez had the tendency to drive recklessly. 51. Defendant Lara knew that Defendant Perez had the tendency to drive recklessly. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence) Derek Whitaker v. Andres Perez 52. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though set forth fully herein. 53. The collision involving Plaintiff was caused by the negligence of Defendant Perez. 54. Defendant Perez had a duty to drive his vehicle with reasonable care under the circumstances then-existing. 55. Defendant Perez owed a duty of reasonable care to his fellow drivers and the passengers of those drivers, including Plaintiff. 56. Defendant Perez breached his duty of care as more fully described above. Page 4 of 7 57. As a direct and proximate and foreseeable result of Defendant Perez’s negligence Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and future physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, medical bills, hospital bills, health care provider bills, permanency and impairment in amounts to be determined at the time of trial. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence Per Se) Derek Whitaker v. Andres Perez 58. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein. 59. In the course of the motor vehicle collision described above, Defendant Perez violated one or more of the following statutes: C.R.S. § 42-4-1402, Careless driving; C.R.S. § 42-4-1401, Reckless driving; C.R.S. § 18-3-205(1)(b)(l) Driving while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury to another; and C.R.S. § 42-4-1301 Driving while Intoxicated. 60. Plaintiff is a member of the class of persons these statutes are intended to protect. 61. The purpose of these statutes is to protect against the type of injuries or losses that Plaintiff sustained. 62. The above-described actions of Defendant Perez constitute negligence per se. 63. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence per se of Defendant Perez, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, past and future physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, medical bills, hospital bills, health care provider bills, permanency and impairment in amounts to be determined at the time of trial. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligent Entrustment) Derek Whitaker v. Yvonne Muzzy 64. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein. 65. On the occasion in question, Defendant Muzzy negligently entrusted the vehicle in question to Defendant Perez. 66. Defendant Muzzy either knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known that Defendant Perez was a reckless, careless, and incompetent driver. Page 5 of 7 67. Defendant Muzzy was, therefore, negligent in entrusting the vehicle to Defendant Perez on the occasion in question. 68. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence of Defendant Muzzy, Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, medical, hospital, doctor bills, loss of earnings and earning capacity, permanent impairment and property damages in amounts to be determined at the time of trial. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Family Car Doctrine) Derek Whitaker v. Yvonne Muzzy 69. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein. 70. Upon information and belief, Defendant Muzzy is “head of the household” as that term is interpreted within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine and Defendant Perez is a legal resident of Defendant Muzzy’s household. 71. The automobile that Defendant Perez was driving on the occasion in question was owned by Defendant Muzzy and made available by Defendant Muzzy to Defendant Perez as a member of the household within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine. 72. Pursuant to the Family Car Doctrine, Defendant Muzzy is responsible at law for the injuries, damages, and losses sustained by Plaintiff and caused by the tortious conduct of Defendant Perez on the occasion in question. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligent Entrustment) Derek Whitaker v. Hector Lara 73. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein. 74. On the occasion in question, Defendant Lara negligently entrusted the vehicle in question to Defendant Perez. 75. Defendant Lara either knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known that Defendant Perez was a reckless, careless, and incompetent driver. 76. Defendant Lara was, therefore, negligent in entrusting the vehicle to Defendant Perez on the occasion in question. Page 6 of 7 77. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence of Defendant Lara, Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, medical, hospital, doctor bills, loss of earnings and earning capacity, permanent impairment and property damages in amounts to be determined at the time of trial. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Family Car Doctrine) Derek Whitaker v. Hector Lara 78. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein. 79. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lara is “head of the household” as that term is interpreted within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine and Defendant Perez is a legal resident of Defendant Lara’s household. 80. The automobile that Defendant Perez was driving on the occasion in question was owned by Defendant Lara and made available by Defendant Lara to Defendant Perez as a member of the household within the meaning of the Family Car Doctrine. 81. Pursuant to the Family Car Doctrine, Defendant Lara is responsible at law for the injuries, damages, and losses sustained by Plaintiff and caused by the tortious conduct of Defendant Perez on the occasion in question. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants and in his favor for actual damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial, pre-judgment interest from the date of the collision, post-judgment interest, costs, expert witness fees, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems proper. Respectfully, submitted on this 12th day of January, 2024. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: /s/ Joseph C. Moulton Joseph C. Moulton, Reg. No. 56907 Dezarae LaCrue, Reg. No. 40290 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiff’s Address: 130 S West 2nd Street Olathe, CO 81425 In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121, §1-26(9), a printed copy of this document with original signatures is being maintained by the filing party and will be made available for inspection by other parties or the Court upon request. Page 7 of 7