Preview
Filing # 190836161 E-Filed 01/30/2024 01:03:50 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 12th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
BLAKE LUEHRMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NUMBER:
RED XPRESS, LLC, a Florida Corporation,
and ARDENTX, LLC, a Florida Corporation,
and E-TRANSPORT CARRIERS, LLC, a
Florida Corporation, and LEONARD
BRNADA, Individually, and PENSKE
TRUCK LEASING CO. LP, and
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW BLAKE LUEHRMAN, by and through Counsel of Record, PARVEY AND
CAVENAGO ATTORNEYS, PA, hereby bring this civil action for harms, losses, and damages suffered
by BLAKE LUEHRMAN, hereby sues Defendants, RED XPRESS, LLC, and ARDENTX, LLC,
and E-TRANSPORT CARRIERS, LLC, and LEONARD BRNADA, and PENSKE TRUCK
LEASING CO., LP, and PROGESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, stating as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. This catastrophic injury action arises from a six-car pileup on July 11, 2022, caused
by RED XPRESS, LLC’s commercial tractor, pulling PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP’s
trailer, when both crashed into a row of legally stopped vehicles, causing a multitude of injuries.
2. On or about July 11, 2022, BLAKE LUEHRMAN was the driver of the vehicle,
when suddenly and without warning—a commercial tractor-trailer, owned by RED XPRESS, LLC
and operated by LEONARD BRNADA, impacted a line of stationary vehicles that were legally
stopped for traffic.
GURNEY LAW, PLLC
Filed 01/30/2024 01:21 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
3. Prior to this crash, ARDENTX, LLC, a Jacksonville-based freight company, hired
RED XPRESS, LLC and its driver, LEONARD BRNADA—a commercial truck driver with a long
history of unsafe driving practices—to operate the tractor-trailer that ultimately caused the
catastrophic injuries to Blake Luehrman.
4. Specifically, on the date of this crash LEONARD BRNADA failed to maintain a
safe speed, failed to maintain a safe traveling distance, and failed to stop for traffic ahead—despite
advanced warning via large, well-lit DOT road signs advising drivers of congestion ahead—
causing extensive catastrophic injuries.
5. As a result, Blake Luehrman brings this action for recovery of all harms, losses,
and damages available for claims pled herein, with express reservation of right to amend this
complaint to add additional claims, including for Punitive Damages.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
6. This action seeks recovery of harms, losses, and damages that exceed One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000/00)—far exceeding the threshold jurisdictional limits of this Court, exclusive
of interest and costs; while Plaintiff did submit a Civil Cover Sheet as required, identifying an
amount above the general threshold jurisdictional limits for Circuit Courts in Florida (the “Amount
of Claim” figure), that figure exists for the purposes of data collection and clerical processing and
does not operate as an estimate, limitation, cap, or reserve amount affecting damages; rather, the
Constitution of the State of Florida guarantees Plaintiff’s right to recovery of the full measure of
damages caused by Defendants—a recovery to be decided by a duly-empaneled jury in the instant
action. Art. I, § 21, FLA. CONST.
7. At all times material to this action Blake Luehrman, was and is a resident of Fort
Myers, Florida and sui juris.
Page 2 of 42
8. At all times material to this action, Defendant, RED XPRESS, LLC (“RED
XPRESS”), was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business in the state
of Florida, for which it receives substantial revenue.
9. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant, RED XPRESS, was a
Commercial Motor Carrier (USDOT 3475787) registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration and the State of Florida, listing a physical address in Pinellas Park, Pinellas County,
Florida, located at 6210 44th Street N., Unit #19, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781.
10. Further, at all times material to this action, RED XPRESS was and remains a
registered Florida Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process
within the state of Florida and a listed place of business located in Pinellas Park, Pinellas County,
Florida; at all times material to this action:
a. Defendant, RED XPRESS, kept an office for the transaction of
customary business in Pinellas County, located at 6210 44th
Street N., Unit 19, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781; and
b. Defendant, RED XPRESS, operated its principal place of
business out of in Pinellas County, located at 6210 44th Street
N., Unit 19, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781; and
c. Defendant, RED XPRESS, was operated by company president,
LEONARD BRNADA; and
d. LEONARD BRNADA, kept an active address in Pinellas
County, located at 4232 56th Ave. N, St. Petersburg, Florida
33714.
11. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, RED XPRESS,
voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court.
12. At all times material to this action, Defendant, LEONARD BRNADA
(“BRNADA”), was and is a resident of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida and sui juris.
13. Accordingly, Defendant, BRNADA, voluntarily submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of this Court.
Page 3 of 42
14. At all times material to this action, Defendant, ARDENTX, LLC (“ARDENTX”),
was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business in the State of Florida,
for which it receives substantial revenue.
15. Further, at all times material to this action, ARDENTX was and remains a
registered Florida Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process
within the State of Florida and a listed place of business located in Jacksonville, Duval County,
Florida; at all times material to this action:
a. Defendant, ARDENTX, kept an office for the transaction of
customary business in Duval County, located at 13225 Vantage
Way, Suite 110, Jacksonville, Florida 32218; and
b. Defendant, ARDENTX, operated its principal place of business
out of Duval County, located at 13225 Vantage Way, Suite 110,
Jacksonville, Florida 32218; and
c. Defendant, ARDENTX, was operated by President, Charles E.
Miller, III; and
d. ARDENTX’s President, Charles E. Miller, III, kept an active
address in Duval County, located at 14411 Marina San Pablo
Place S, Jacksonville, Florida 32224.
16. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, ARDENTX,
voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court.
17. At all times material to this action, Defendant, E-TRANSPORT CARRIERS, LLC
(“E-TRANSPORT”), was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business
in the State of Florida, for which it receives substantial revenue.
18. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, was a
Commercial Motor Carrier (USDOT #1067244) and Commercial Broker (MC-738912) registered
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the State of Florida, listing a physical
address in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, located at 4500 Salisbury Road, STE 160,
Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
Page 4 of 42
19. Further, at all times material to this action, E-TRANSPORT was and remains a
registered Florida Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process
within the state of Florida and a listed place of business located in Jacksonville, Duval County,
Florida; at all times material to this action:
a. Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, kept an office for the transaction
of customary business in Duval County, located at 900 N Canal
Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32209 or 4500 Salisbury Rd., STE
305, Jacksonville, Florida 32216; and
b. Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, operated its principal place of
business out of Duval County, located at 900 N Canal Street,
Jacksonville, Florida 32209; and
c. Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, was operated by managing
members, Sunteck/TTS Integration II, Inc. and MODE Global,
LLC; and
d. Managing member, Sunteck/TTS Integration II, Inc., kept an
active address in Duval County, located at 4500 Salisbury Rd.,
STE 305, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
e. Managing member, MODE Global, LLC, kept an active address
in Duval County, located at 4500 Salisbury Rd., STE 305,
Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
20. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, E-TRANSPORT,
voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court.
21. At all times material to this action, Defendant, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO.,
LP (“PENSKE”), was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business in the
State of Florida, for which it receives substantial revenue.
22. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant, PENSKE, was registered
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (USDOT #327574) and the State of Florida,
listing a physical address located at Route 10 Green Hills, Reading, PA 19630-0563.
23. Further, at all times material to this action, PENSKE was and remains a registered
Foreign Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process within
Page 5 of 42
the state of Florida located at 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301 and a listed place of
business located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida; at all times material to this action:
a. Defendant, PENSKE, kept an office for the transaction of
customary business in Duval County, located at 10821 Philips
Hwy, Jacksonville, Florida 32256.
24. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, PENSKE, voluntarily
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court.
25. Venue is proper in Duval County, Florida because corporate Defendants,
ARDENTX, E-TRANSPORT, and PENSKE, all kept an office for the transaction of customary
business within the boundary of Duval County, Florida. See §§47.011, 47.051, FLA. STAT.
26. Venue is proper in Duval County, Florida because corporate Defendant,
ARDENTX has a Registered Agent for service of process located within the boundary of Duval
County, Florida. See id.
THE SUBJECT CRASH
27. Just after 10:00 a.m. on July 11, 2022, LEONARD BRNADA—the selected driver,
sole occupant, and individual in exclusive control of the tractor-trailer—operated RED XPRESS’
2006 Volvo VNL670 tractor (heavy truck) towing a 53’ Wabash trailer owned by PENSKE while
traveling south on Interstate 75 just north of State Road 72 (Clark Road) in Sarasota, Florida.
28. At that time and place, the roadway of Interstate 75 was dry and well-marked.
29. At that time and place, the weather was clear and visibility on Interstate 75 was
clear and unobstructed.
30. At that time and place, well-lit FDOT warning signs clearly advised drivers of
upcoming traffic obstructions and construction work on Interstate 75 in the same direction.
Page 6 of 42
31. BRNADA was either distracted or he saw the FDOT warning signs and chose to
ignore them.
32. In approaching stopped traffic ahead, BRNADA drove in an egregiously negligent
manner—traveling too quickly for conditions, failing to keep a safe stopping distance, and failing
to stop in time to avoid striking a row of at least five (5) other vehicles legally stopped for traffic
and construction work being performed up ahead.
33. In so doing, BRNADA first impacted the rear of a 2013 Jeep Wrangler, driven by
Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman and occupied by Nicholas Hoerle and John Lui, causing Blake
Luehrman, Mr. Hoerle, and Mr. Lui to suffer injuries severe enough to require Emergency Medical
Services transportation to Sarasota Memorial Hospital.
34. As BRNADA approached Luehrman’s Jeep, BRNADA knew—or at the very least,
should have known—that the speed and manner in which BRNADA was operating the tractor-
trailer was dangerous and reasonably likely to result in injuries or death to other motorists
including Richard B. Hill, and Richard N. Hill. (deceased).
35. In fact, BRNADA’s rear-end impact of Luehrman’s Jeep was so forceful that the
RED XPRESS tractor-trailer driven by BRNADA continued moving forward into stopped traffic,
next impacting the rear of the 2014 Ford Expedition driven by Richard B. Hill, and occupied by
Richard N. Hill (deceased).
36. BRNADA had ample time to observe and appreciate the danger that BRNADA
posed to Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, and others (including the four (4) other vehicles struck by
BRNADA that day)—time that was more than sufficient for BRNADA to slow, change lanes, or
simply enter the shoulder to avoid creating a zone of risk to Plaintiff and others.
Page 7 of 42
37. Instead, BRNADA remained in the same lane at a constant or near constant speed,
slamming into the rear of Luehrman’s Jeep, then the Hill family, before also striking vehicles
carrying Richard Smith (also transported to Sarasota Memorial Hospital), Joshua Pleasant, and
Jamal Benson.
38. The RED XPRESS tractor-trailer driven by BRNADA impacted the Hill vehicle
with such force that Blake Luehrman, resulting in a catastrophic concussion, deep cuts on head,
face and arms, bruises, burn from airbag.
39. At all times material to this action, BRNADA failed to operate RED XPRESS’
tractor (and the trailer being towed) in a reasonably safe manner.
40. Critically, at no point before impact did BRNADA brake sufficiently to avoid
striking traffic ahead.
41. At the moment of impact, BRNADA did not have the right-of-way.
42. As a result, BRNADA drove RED XPRESS’s tractor truck (and trailer being towed)
into the Blake Luehrman, causing massive damage which necessitated medical care and treatment.
THE HEAVY TRUCK AND TRAILER
43. During the subject crash, BRNADA operated a large commercial articulated
tractor-trailer, at the request of and with permission from RED XPRESS; the combination vehicle
consisted of two “units:”
a. THE “HEAVY TRUCK:” the 2006 Volvo VNL670, with a
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (“GVWR”) of approximately 52,000
pounds, bearing VIN: 4V4NC9GH56N421077; and
b. THE “TRAILER:” a 2023 Wabash 53’ trailer, with a GVWR
of approximately 65,000 pounds, bearing (VIN or S/N:
1JJV532D0PL295481.
Page 8 of 42
44. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS was the registered owner and
legal title holder of the HEAVY TRUCK.
45. At all times material to this action, PENSKE was the registered owner and legal
title holder of the TRAILER.
46. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS and BRNADA were the
permissive users of the HEAVY TRUCK.
47. At all times material to this action, BRNADA was the permissive operator of the
HEAVY TRUCK.
48. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS and BRNADA were the
permissive users of the TRAILER.
49. At all times material to this action, BRNADA was the permissive operator of the
TRAILER.
50. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate
the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER under the commercial motor carrier authority of RED
XPRESS.
51. Critically, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and
TRAILER while RED XPRESS had actual or constructive knowledge of BRNADA’s long history
of unsafe driving habits.
52. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS was in exclusive possession,
custody, and or control of the HEAVY TRUCK.
53. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS was in exclusive possession,
custody, and or control of the TRAILER.
Page 9 of 42
54. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS transferred possession of the
HEAVY TRUCK to BRNADA.
55. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS transferred possession of the
TRAILER to BRNADA.
56. Before transferring possession of the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER to
BRNADA, RED XPRESS failed to properly instruct, supervise, train, and reprimand BRNADA,
up to and including termination.
57. In fact, RED XPRESS would never, under any circumstances, have ever terminated
BRNADA, regardless of BRNADA’s conduct while driving a motor vehicle.
58. When BRNADA took possession of the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER,
BRNADA operated it under the direction, control, and supervision of RED XPRESS while using
and relying upon the Operating Authority of RED XPRESS.
59. BRNADA operated the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER for the benefit of RED
XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E-TRANSPORT via transportation of goods then inside the trailer
and/or additional goods yet to be loaded (the “SUBJECT LOAD”).
THE OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
60. Companies that direct or control the operation of commercial motor vehicles 1 are
referred to as “motor carriers” by the state of Florida and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (“FMCSA”)—formerly known as the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”). 2
1
49 C.F.R. 390.5 defines “commercial motor vehicle” to mean “any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a
highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property” which has a weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,001
pounds) or more.
2
In 1996, the ICC was replaced by the FMCSA, which now operates under the auspices of the United States
Department of Transportation. See Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803; 1995-12-29.
Page 10 of 42
61. The operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles (“CMVs”)—like the HEAVY
TRUCK and TRAILER—is a dangerous and highly regulated enterprise, requiring carriers to
comply with strict federal and state 3 requirements.
62. This makes sense, as CMVs are far more dangerous than even the largest passenger
vehicle, due to the sheer size, weight, and overall mass of CMVs.
63. The commercial transportation of goods constitutes a hazardous activity presenting
substantial dangers to members of the motoring public, especially when such transportation is not
skillfully and carefully done.
64. Accordingly, Motor Carriers, Brokers, Third- Party Logistics Companies (“3PLs”),
and Fourth-Party Logistics Companies (“4PLs”)—along with heavy truck owners, equipment
providers, and others involved in the transportation cycle—all owe a duty of care to the public and
tractor-trailer drivers alike.
65. In exchange for the privilege of operating commercial motor vehicles and heavy
equipment on public roadways for profit, aspiring motor carriers are required to apply for a
USDOT number and then obtain “operating authority” from the FMCSA.
66. Operating authority is conferred and tracked by the FMCSA through the assignment
of a “MC” (or “MX or “FF”) number, unique to each motor carrier.
67. Only once an aspiring motor carrier obtains operating authority, may the carrier
then operate commercial motor vehicles in commerce.
68. In order to do so, all aspiring motor carriers seeking operating authority must
complete and sign a “FORM OP-1” application before an MC number will be assigned.
3
Like many states, Florida has adopted federal regulations directly into state law. See §316.302(1), Fla. Stat. (2018).
Page 11 of 42
69. Each FORM OP-1 application contains a detailed “Safety Certification” which
must be signed under oath by the applicant.
70. Specifically, a FORM OP-1 applicant must swear that the company “has access to
and is familiar with all applicable USDOT regulations relating to the safe operation of commercial
vehicles.”
71. Further, the applicant must swear it “will comply with [all applicable] regulations.”
This includes, inter alia, that the applicant will institute a mandatory driver safety
training/orientation program:
72. Only once the FORM OP-1 is submitted and accepted by FMCSA, will the
applicant be provided a unique “MC” number.
73. The MC number designates an applicant as a “Motor Carrier,” permitted to legally
operate CMVs in limited circumstances. See e.g. 49 U.S.C. 13902, 49 C.F.R. part 368, part 368,
part 392.9(a).
Page 12 of 42
74. To operate within the state of Florida, a Motor Carrier must also apply for and
obtain a USDOT or FLDOT number. See §316.70, FLA. STAT., et seq.
75. To ensure continued compliance with federal law, a Motor Carrier must actively
and continuously review its own compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(“FMCSR”), codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
76. Motor Carriers therefore accept an ongoing obligation to comply with safety
regulations including, inter alia, the duty to train and supervise all drivers, inspect all CMVs, and
perform specific and timely maintenance and repairs.
77. Accordingly, all Motor Carriers owe an ongoing, non-delegable duty of care to the
motoring public.
Page 13 of 42
78. Here, RED XPRESS and E-TRANSPORT each completed a binding FORM OP-1
illustrating their knowledge and understanding of owed duties to the motoring public, similar in
form and function to the following:
THE MOTOR CARRIER: RED XPRESS
79. At the time of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS possessed a USDOT number
and Motor Carrier Operating Authority (USDOT number: 3475787).
80. As a result, at the time of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS was duty-bound
to, inter alia:
a. Have in place a system and an individual responsible for
ensuring overall compliance with the FMCSRs;
b. Be able to produce a copy of the FMCSRs and other regulations;
c. Have in place a driver safety training/orientation program;
d. Prepare and maintain an accident register;
e. Be familiar with regulations governing driver qualifications and
institute a system for overseeing driver qualification
requirements; and
f. Have in place policies and procedures consistent with
regulations governing driving and operational safety of motor
vehicles, including drivers’ hours of service and vehicle
inspection, repair, and maintenance.
81. Yet, at the time of the SUBJECT CRASH and in contravention of its oath,
Defendant, RED XPRESS:
a. failed to establish a system or individual responsible for
ensuring overall compliance with applicable regulations;
b. failed to establish a driver safety training/orientation program;
c. fail to enact polices or procedures consistent with regulations
governing driving and operational safety of motor vehicles;
d. failed to enact polices or procedures consistent with regulations
governing drivers’ hours of service;
e. failed to enact polices or procedures consistent with regulations
governing vehicle inspection, repair, or maintenance; and/or
f. failed to properly train drivers in the transportation of goods via
commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce.
Page 14 of 42
82. Specifically, by way of example and not limitation, RED XPRESS permitted
BRNADA to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER despite BRNADA’s long history of
unsafe driving habits.
83. Accordingly, RED XPRESS violated its duty via its FMCSA oath, along with
corresponding obligations owed to fellow motorists to ensure the safety of the roads and highways.
RED XPRESS’ STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT OF THE DRIVER
84. At all times material hereto, RED XPRESS was a business engaged in the
commercial transportation of goods in commerce, in exchange for profit.
85. At all times material hereto, RED XPRESS was a business engaged in the
commercial transportation of goods in commerce, in exchange for profit.
86. On the date of the subject crash, RED XPRESS tasked BRNADA with driving the
HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER for the financial benefit of RED XPRESS.
87. In so doing, RED XPRESS tasked BRNADA with traveling on public roads and
highways near other motorists, thus affecting commercial motor vehicle safety.
88. Together, RED XPRESS and BRNADA were engaged in a business enterprise
which affected commercial motor vehicle safety through the transportation of goods in commerce.
89. RED XPRESS owned, operated, leased, directed, and/or controlled the conduct of
drivers—including BRNADA—as well as the operation of CMVs under RED XPRESS’s
ownership and/or control.
90. As a result, at all times material hereto, RED XPRESS is and was the “Statutory
Employer” of BRNADA because:
a. By definition, Statutory Employers permit an individual—
regardless of technical employment status or title—to directly
affect commercial vehicle safety through the course of work
performed. See 49 C.F.R. 390.5.
Page 15 of 42
b. Accordingly, Statutory Employers possess a special, affirmative
obligation to comply with regulations, including mandatory
document retention, recording and self-reporting, and
requirements governing the proper evaluation and qualification
of drivers.
c. Statutory Employers are considered employers of
individual(s)—regardless of technical employment status or
title—in derogation of the common law. 4
91. Thus, by operation of law, 5 RED XPRESS was—at all times material to this
action—the Statutory Employer of BRNADA.
92. The decision of RED XPRESS to permit BRNADA to operate a commercial motor
vehicle, including without proper evaluation, training, retraining, supervision, reprimand, and/or
termination, violated the obligations RED XPRESS owed to the motoring public Statutory
Employer of BRNADA.
THE ROLE OF ARDENTX AND E-TRANSPORT IN TRANSPORTATION
93. The transportation of goods in interstate commerce constitutes an ultra-hazardous
activity that presents substantial dangers to the driving public when not done safely, properly and
with due caution; federal regulations, state statutes, industry standards and local ordinances govern
the qualification, training, supervision, and retention of professional tractor-trailer drivers, as well
as proper maintenance of commercial motor vehicles, required equipment for commercial motor
vehicles, and safe operation practices of brokers, motor carriers, commercial motor vehicles, and
professional truck drivers.
4
See 49 C.F.R. 390.5 (defining employer as “any person engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce who
owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle in connection with that business or assigns employees to operate it”).
5
See 49 C.F.R. 390.5 (defining employee as anyone “who in the course of his or her employment directly affects
commercial motor vehicle safety. Such term includes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including an
independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle)”).
Page 16 of 42
94. As part of a strategy to vertically integrate and take control of shipping arrangements
via “broker” agreements, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT have developed a logistics network
designed to arrange for the transportation of goods in interstate and intrastate commerce.
95. Depending on who you ask, ARDENTX is either a Division of E-TRANSPORT
or else E-TRANSPORT is a Division of ARDENTX.
96. Regardless, in 2022, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT partnered up to provide
logistics services to the shippers of goods—connecting shippers to commercial motor carriers like
RED XPRESS.
97. As part of this strategy, ARDENTX and/or E-TRANSPORT routinely enter(s) into
contracts with shippers, motor carriers, and receivers or warehouses to enable the transportation
of goods on the roads and highways of Florida and beyond.
98. Approved motor carriers working for ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT do not
negotiate payment; the payment amounts are pre-set by ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT for each
shipment.
99. Once a motor carrier books an assignment from ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT,
the carrier must then assign a driver and deliver the load.
100. Yet, rather than acting as a mere intermediary between contracting parties,
ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT actually provide “vett[ing]” services—researching the safety
profile of motor carriers before connecting those motor carriers with shippers and receivers.
101. Further, during the process of delivery, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT use
software and electronic hardware to track shipments and provide “24/7 updates” to shippers.
Page 17 of 42
102. Among other “24/7 updates,” ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT have access to
speed and location data—data which would alert ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT when a driver,
like BRNADA, is driving too quickly or for too long.
ARDENTX AND E-TRANSPORT: SELECTING AN UNSAFE MOTOR CARRIER
103. Shortly before the SUBJECT CRASH, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT entered
into an agreement with RED XPRESS.
104. In their agreement, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT agreed to provide logistics
services, connecting RED XPRESS with shippers, receivers, and warehouses.
105. In exchange, RED XPRESS agreed to pay ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT for
logistics services based upon the shipment loads provided by ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT.
106. At no point in the business relationship did ARDENTX or E-TRANSPORT ever
research the safety record of RED XPRESS or its driver, LEONARD BRNADA.
107. Alternately, ARDENTX or E-TRANSPORT did research the safety record of RED
XPRESS and/or its driver, LEONARD BRNADA and, upon review of the results, ARDENTX
and/or E-TRANSPORT made the decision to contract with RED XPRESS nonetheless.
108. During the entirety of the business relationship between ARDENTX/ E-
TRANSPORT and RED XPRESS, RED XPRESS was a motor carrier operating without any safety
systems whatsoever, transporting goods in commerce despite not having completed a Safety Audit
to obtain a Safety Rating from FMCSA.
109. In contracting with RED XPRESS, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT took on the
responsibility to comply with state and federal law to ensure the safe operation and maintenance
of commercial motor vehicles and the use of safe and qualified commercial drivers and motor
carrier.
Page 18 of 42
110. Instead, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT failed to comply with the foregoing
when they—individually or collectively—decided to contract with RED XPRESS: an unrated,
inexperienced, unqualified, and unsafe motor carrier.
111. In sum, shortly after the formation of RED XPRESS and notwithstanding a total
lack of safety systems and no available FMCSA Safety Audit or Safety Rating, ARDENTX and
E-TRANSPORT made the decision that it would be prudent and safe to contract RED XPRESS to
transport heavy loads on the roads and highways of the state of Florida.
THE PENSKE TRAILER
112. In the immediate aftermath of the Subject Crash, PENSKE took possession of the
TRAILER.
113. Upon representation by PENSKE representatives, PENSKE did not preserve the
TRAILER after the Subject Crash.
114. In fact, PENSKE used the Subject Trailer such that the Subject Trailer is not,
currently, in the same condition it was in at the time of the Subject Crash.
COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE OF RED XPRESS, LLC
FOR CAUSING INJURY TO BLAKE LUEHRMAN
115. Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, realleges all paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
116. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate
the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER under RED XPRESS’s Motor Carrier Operating Authority.
117. RED XPRESS created a foreseeable zone of danger to other motorists and to Blake
Luehrman, including the danger that injuries or death would occur to other motorists as the result
of any collision resulting from BRNADA’s negligent operation of a commercial motor vehicle.
Page 19 of 42
118. DUTY. RED XPRESS owed a non-delegable duty to the motoring public and to
Blake Luehrman in that RED XPRESS was required to exercise reasonable care, including but not
limited to:
a. Entrust CMVs and Equipment to Safe Drivers. RED XPRESS
owed a non-delegable duty to ensure that only a qualified and
reasonably safe driver operated the HEAVY TRUCK and
TRAILER on public roadways; and/or
b. Operate in Conformity with Motor Carrier Safety Laws. RED
XPRESS owed non-delegable duties to comply with motor
carrier safety regulations and to ensure all drivers, statutory
employees, vehicles, and equipment operate in compliance with
motor carrier safety regulations; and/or
c. Hire Qualified Drivers. RED XPRESS owed a non-delegable
duty to hire only qualified drivers, capable of operating a CMV
in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner and fit to perform
the tasks assigned, including during interactions with motorists;
and/or
d. Select Qualified Drivers. RED XPRESS owed a non-delegable
duty to select only competent and careful drivers, capable of
operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent
manner, including during interactions with motorists; and/or
e. Retain Safe Drivers. RED XPRESS owed non-delegable duties
to employ and retain only qualified drivers, capable of operating
a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner, and to
investigate, retrain, re-assign, suspend, and/or discharge drivers
who exhibited unsafe driving characteristics, violated traffic
laws, and/or otherwise failed to comply with motor carrier safety
regulations; and/or
f. Train and Supervise Drivers. RED XPRESS owed a non-
delegable duty to train and supervise drivers, including in motor
carrier safety regulations, traffic laws, and proper CMV
operational procedures; and/or
g. Inspect and Maintain CMVs and Equipment. RED XPRESS
owed non-delegable duties to inspect and to maintain, or
otherwise ensure the inspection and maintenance of, the
HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER, including the non-delegable
Page 20 of 42
duty to eliminate conditions which could impede the safe
operation of the subject tractor trailer on public roadways.
119. BREACH. RED XPRESS breached its non-delegable duty and was therefore
negligent towards Blake Luehrman in one or more of the following ways:
a. Negligent Entrustment. RED XPRESS failed to exercise
reasonable care in ensuring that only a qualified and reasonably
safe driver operated the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER on
public roadways; and/or
b. Negligent Operation. RED XPRESS failed to exercise
reasonable care in complying with motor carrier safety
regulations and failed to ensure all drivers, statutory employees,
vehicles, and equipment operate in compliance with motor
carrier safety regulations; and/or
c. Negligent Hiring. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable
care in hiring only qualified drivers, capable of operating a CMV
in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner and fit to perform
the tasks assigned, including during interactions with motorists;
and/or
d. Negligent Selection. RED XPRESS failed to exercise
reasonable care to select competent and careful drivers, capable
of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent
manner, including during interactions with motorists; and/or
e. Negligent Retention. RED XPRESS failed to exercise
reasonable care in employing and retaining only qualified
drivers, capable of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and
non-negligent manner, and failed to exercise reasonable care in
investigating, retraining, re-assigning, suspending, and/or
discharging drivers who exhibited unsafe driving characteristics,
violated traffic laws, and/or otherwise violated motor carrier
safety regulations; and/or
f. Negligent Training/ Supervision. RED XPRESS failed to
exercise reasonable care in training and supervising drivers,
including in motor carrier safety regulations, traffic laws, and/or
proper CMV operational procedures; and/or
g. Negligent Inspection and Maintenance. RED XPRESS failed to
exercise reasonable care in inspecting and maintaining, or
otherwise ensuring the inspection and maintenance of, the
Page 21 of 42
HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER, including by failing to
eliminate conditions which could impede the safe operation of
the subject tractor trailer on public roadways.
120. CAUSATION. The negligence of RED XPRESS—described above—did directly
and proximately cause the injuries suffered by Blake Luehrman in that RED XPRESS’ breach of
duty did directly (and in natural and continuous sequence) produce or contribute substantially to
the injuries, harms, losses, and damages suffered by Blake Luehrman.
121. DAMAGES. As a direct and proximate result of RED XPRESS’ negligence, Blake
Luehrman was injured in and about the body and suffered, inter alia: permanent injury, disability,
disfigurement, scarring, pain and suffering, aggravation of preexisting conditions, loss of past
wages, loss of future earning capacity, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses
in the care of treatment of said injuries, as well as noneconomic damages associated therewith.
All injuries are permanent, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, and all injuries will
require future medical treatment. John Liu will continue to suffer damages in the future.
WHEREFORE, Blake Luehrman demands judgment against Defendant, RED XPRESS,
Inc., including for an award of all damages, harms, losses, costs, and interest as allowed by law,
as well as for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Blake Luehrman hereby
respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE VS. LEONARD BRNADA
FOR CAUSING INJURY TO BLAKE LUEHRMAN
122. Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, realleges all paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
123. BRNADA created a foreseeable zone of danger to Plaintiff—including the danger
that Blake Luehrman would be struck by a vehicle or otherwise injured by BRNADA—as
Page 22 of 42
evidenced by, inter alia, BRNADA’s failure to exercise reasonable care when operating a
commercial motor vehicle.
124. AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS, ARDENTX,
and E-TRANSPORT utilized the services of BRNADA, to act for and/or on behalf of RED
XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E-TRANSPORT while RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E-
TRANSPORT exercised control and/or right of control over BRNADA; BRNADA did act
negligently within the scope of this agency.
125. APPARENT AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS,
ARDENTX, and E-TRANSPORT—by words or conduct—caused or allowed Blake Luehrman to
believe that BRNADA was an agent of RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, E-TRANSPORT, or another
person or entity authorized to act on behalf of the foregoing, and Blake Luehrman justifiably did
so believe; BRNADA did act negligently within the scope of this apparent agency.
126. NON-DELEGABLE DUTY. BRNADA owed a non-delegable duty to exercise
reasonable care to other motorists, including Blake Luehrman, in one or more of the following
ways:
a. Inspecting the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK; and/or
b. Maintaining the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK; and/or
c. Operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER in a reasonably
safe and non-negligent manner on public roadways; and/or
d. Maintaining a safe and controllable operating speed while
operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or
e. Yielding to others using the roadway while operating the
HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or
f. Executing driving maneuvers safely and with due caution for
other motorists; and/or
g. Keeping a proper lookout while operating the HEAVY TRUCK
and TRAILER.
Page 23 of 42
127. BREACH OF NON-DELEGABLE DUTY. BRNADA breached his non-
delegable duty owed to the motoring public and to Blake Luehrman and was therefore negligent
in one or more of the following ways:
a. Failing to inspect the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK; and/or
b. Failing to maintain the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK;
and/or
c. Failing to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER in a
reasonably safe and non-negligent manner on public roadways;
and/or
d. Failing to maintain a safe and controllable operating speed while
operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or
e. Failing to yield to others using the roadway while operating the
HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or
f. Failing to execute driving maneuvers safely and with due
caution for other motorists; and/or
g. Failing to keep a proper lookout while operating the HEAVY
TRUCK and TRAILER.
128. CAUSATION. The negligence of BRNADA—described herein—did directly and
proximately cause the injuries suffered by Blake Luehrman in that BRNADA’s breach of duty did
directly (and in natural and continuous sequence) produce or contribute substantially to the
injuries, harms, losses, and damages suffered by Blake Luehrman.
129. DAMAGES. As a direct and proximate result of BRNADA’ negligence, Blake
Luehrman was injured in and about the body and suffered, inter alia: permanent injury, disability,
disfigurement, scarring, pain and suffering, aggravation of preexisting conditions, loss of past
wages, loss of future earning capacity, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses
in the care of treatment of said injuries, as well as noneconomic damages associated therewith.
All injuries are permanent, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, and all injuries will
require future medical treatment. Blake Luehrman will continue to suffer damages in the future.
WHEREFORE, Blake Luehrman demands judgment against Defendant, LEONARD
BRNADA, including for an award of all damages, harms, losses, costs, and interest as allowed by
Page 24 of 42
law, as well as for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Blake Luehrman hereby
respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
COUNT III
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF RED XPRESS, LLC
FOR INJURIES TO BLAKE LUEHRMAN
130. Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, realleges all paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
131. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate
the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER under RED XPRESS’ Federal Motor Carrier Operating
Authority.
132. AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS utilized the
services of BRNADA, to act for and on behalf of RED XPRESS while RED XPRESS exercised
control and/or right of control over BRNADA, during which time BRNADA acted negligently
within the scope of that agency.
133. APPARENT AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS—
by its words or conduct—caused or allowed others (including Blake Luehrman) to believe that
BRNADA was an agent of RED XPRESS, during which time BRNADA acted negligently within
the scope of apparent agency.
134. STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT. By operation of law, RED XPRESS was a
Statutory Employer 6 of BRNADA on t
Preview
Filing # 190836161 E-Filed 01/30/2024 01:03:50 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 12th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA BLAKE LUEHRMAN, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NUMBER: RED XPRESS, LLC, a Florida Corporation, and ARDENTX, LLC, a Florida Corporation, and E-TRANSPORT CARRIERS, LLC, a Florida Corporation, and LEONARD BRNADA, Individually, and PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO. LP, and PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. ______________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW BLAKE LUEHRMAN, by and through Counsel of Record, PARVEY AND CAVENAGO ATTORNEYS, PA, hereby bring this civil action for harms, losses, and damages suffered by BLAKE LUEHRMAN, hereby sues Defendants, RED XPRESS, LLC, and ARDENTX, LLC, and E-TRANSPORT CARRIERS, LLC, and LEONARD BRNADA, and PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP, and PROGESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, stating as follows: BACKGROUND 1. This catastrophic injury action arises from a six-car pileup on July 11, 2022, caused by RED XPRESS, LLC’s commercial tractor, pulling PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP’s trailer, when both crashed into a row of legally stopped vehicles, causing a multitude of injuries. 2. On or about July 11, 2022, BLAKE LUEHRMAN was the driver of the vehicle, when suddenly and without warning—a commercial tractor-trailer, owned by RED XPRESS, LLC and operated by LEONARD BRNADA, impacted a line of stationary vehicles that were legally stopped for traffic. GURNEY LAW, PLLC Filed 01/30/2024 01:21 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL 3. Prior to this crash, ARDENTX, LLC, a Jacksonville-based freight company, hired RED XPRESS, LLC and its driver, LEONARD BRNADA—a commercial truck driver with a long history of unsafe driving practices—to operate the tractor-trailer that ultimately caused the catastrophic injuries to Blake Luehrman. 4. Specifically, on the date of this crash LEONARD BRNADA failed to maintain a safe speed, failed to maintain a safe traveling distance, and failed to stop for traffic ahead—despite advanced warning via large, well-lit DOT road signs advising drivers of congestion ahead— causing extensive catastrophic injuries. 5. As a result, Blake Luehrman brings this action for recovery of all harms, losses, and damages available for claims pled herein, with express reservation of right to amend this complaint to add additional claims, including for Punitive Damages. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 6. This action seeks recovery of harms, losses, and damages that exceed One Million Dollars ($1,000,000/00)—far exceeding the threshold jurisdictional limits of this Court, exclusive of interest and costs; while Plaintiff did submit a Civil Cover Sheet as required, identifying an amount above the general threshold jurisdictional limits for Circuit Courts in Florida (the “Amount of Claim” figure), that figure exists for the purposes of data collection and clerical processing and does not operate as an estimate, limitation, cap, or reserve amount affecting damages; rather, the Constitution of the State of Florida guarantees Plaintiff’s right to recovery of the full measure of damages caused by Defendants—a recovery to be decided by a duly-empaneled jury in the instant action. Art. I, § 21, FLA. CONST. 7. At all times material to this action Blake Luehrman, was and is a resident of Fort Myers, Florida and sui juris. Page 2 of 42 8. At all times material to this action, Defendant, RED XPRESS, LLC (“RED XPRESS”), was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business in the state of Florida, for which it receives substantial revenue. 9. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant, RED XPRESS, was a Commercial Motor Carrier (USDOT 3475787) registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the State of Florida, listing a physical address in Pinellas Park, Pinellas County, Florida, located at 6210 44th Street N., Unit #19, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781. 10. Further, at all times material to this action, RED XPRESS was and remains a registered Florida Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process within the state of Florida and a listed place of business located in Pinellas Park, Pinellas County, Florida; at all times material to this action: a. Defendant, RED XPRESS, kept an office for the transaction of customary business in Pinellas County, located at 6210 44th Street N., Unit 19, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781; and b. Defendant, RED XPRESS, operated its principal place of business out of in Pinellas County, located at 6210 44th Street N., Unit 19, Pinellas Park, Florida 33781; and c. Defendant, RED XPRESS, was operated by company president, LEONARD BRNADA; and d. LEONARD BRNADA, kept an active address in Pinellas County, located at 4232 56th Ave. N, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714. 11. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, RED XPRESS, voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. 12. At all times material to this action, Defendant, LEONARD BRNADA (“BRNADA”), was and is a resident of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida and sui juris. 13. Accordingly, Defendant, BRNADA, voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court. Page 3 of 42 14. At all times material to this action, Defendant, ARDENTX, LLC (“ARDENTX”), was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business in the State of Florida, for which it receives substantial revenue. 15. Further, at all times material to this action, ARDENTX was and remains a registered Florida Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process within the State of Florida and a listed place of business located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida; at all times material to this action: a. Defendant, ARDENTX, kept an office for the transaction of customary business in Duval County, located at 13225 Vantage Way, Suite 110, Jacksonville, Florida 32218; and b. Defendant, ARDENTX, operated its principal place of business out of Duval County, located at 13225 Vantage Way, Suite 110, Jacksonville, Florida 32218; and c. Defendant, ARDENTX, was operated by President, Charles E. Miller, III; and d. ARDENTX’s President, Charles E. Miller, III, kept an active address in Duval County, located at 14411 Marina San Pablo Place S, Jacksonville, Florida 32224. 16. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, ARDENTX, voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. 17. At all times material to this action, Defendant, E-TRANSPORT CARRIERS, LLC (“E-TRANSPORT”), was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business in the State of Florida, for which it receives substantial revenue. 18. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, was a Commercial Motor Carrier (USDOT #1067244) and Commercial Broker (MC-738912) registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the State of Florida, listing a physical address in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, located at 4500 Salisbury Road, STE 160, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. Page 4 of 42 19. Further, at all times material to this action, E-TRANSPORT was and remains a registered Florida Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process within the state of Florida and a listed place of business located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida; at all times material to this action: a. Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, kept an office for the transaction of customary business in Duval County, located at 900 N Canal Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32209 or 4500 Salisbury Rd., STE 305, Jacksonville, Florida 32216; and b. Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, operated its principal place of business out of Duval County, located at 900 N Canal Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32209; and c. Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, was operated by managing members, Sunteck/TTS Integration II, Inc. and MODE Global, LLC; and d. Managing member, Sunteck/TTS Integration II, Inc., kept an active address in Duval County, located at 4500 Salisbury Rd., STE 305, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. e. Managing member, MODE Global, LLC, kept an active address in Duval County, located at 4500 Salisbury Rd., STE 305, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. 20. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, E-TRANSPORT, voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. 21. At all times material to this action, Defendant, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP (“PENSKE”), was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company, registered to do business in the State of Florida, for which it receives substantial revenue. 22. Further, at all times material to this action, Defendant, PENSKE, was registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (USDOT #327574) and the State of Florida, listing a physical address located at Route 10 Green Hills, Reading, PA 19630-0563. 23. Further, at all times material to this action, PENSKE was and remains a registered Foreign Limited Liability Company with a listed Registered Agent for service of process within Page 5 of 42 the state of Florida located at 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301 and a listed place of business located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida; at all times material to this action: a. Defendant, PENSKE, kept an office for the transaction of customary business in Duval County, located at 10821 Philips Hwy, Jacksonville, Florida 32256. 24. Accordingly, at all times material to this action, Defendant, PENSKE, voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. 25. Venue is proper in Duval County, Florida because corporate Defendants, ARDENTX, E-TRANSPORT, and PENSKE, all kept an office for the transaction of customary business within the boundary of Duval County, Florida. See §§47.011, 47.051, FLA. STAT. 26. Venue is proper in Duval County, Florida because corporate Defendant, ARDENTX has a Registered Agent for service of process located within the boundary of Duval County, Florida. See id. THE SUBJECT CRASH 27. Just after 10:00 a.m. on July 11, 2022, LEONARD BRNADA—the selected driver, sole occupant, and individual in exclusive control of the tractor-trailer—operated RED XPRESS’ 2006 Volvo VNL670 tractor (heavy truck) towing a 53’ Wabash trailer owned by PENSKE while traveling south on Interstate 75 just north of State Road 72 (Clark Road) in Sarasota, Florida. 28. At that time and place, the roadway of Interstate 75 was dry and well-marked. 29. At that time and place, the weather was clear and visibility on Interstate 75 was clear and unobstructed. 30. At that time and place, well-lit FDOT warning signs clearly advised drivers of upcoming traffic obstructions and construction work on Interstate 75 in the same direction. Page 6 of 42 31. BRNADA was either distracted or he saw the FDOT warning signs and chose to ignore them. 32. In approaching stopped traffic ahead, BRNADA drove in an egregiously negligent manner—traveling too quickly for conditions, failing to keep a safe stopping distance, and failing to stop in time to avoid striking a row of at least five (5) other vehicles legally stopped for traffic and construction work being performed up ahead. 33. In so doing, BRNADA first impacted the rear of a 2013 Jeep Wrangler, driven by Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman and occupied by Nicholas Hoerle and John Lui, causing Blake Luehrman, Mr. Hoerle, and Mr. Lui to suffer injuries severe enough to require Emergency Medical Services transportation to Sarasota Memorial Hospital. 34. As BRNADA approached Luehrman’s Jeep, BRNADA knew—or at the very least, should have known—that the speed and manner in which BRNADA was operating the tractor- trailer was dangerous and reasonably likely to result in injuries or death to other motorists including Richard B. Hill, and Richard N. Hill. (deceased). 35. In fact, BRNADA’s rear-end impact of Luehrman’s Jeep was so forceful that the RED XPRESS tractor-trailer driven by BRNADA continued moving forward into stopped traffic, next impacting the rear of the 2014 Ford Expedition driven by Richard B. Hill, and occupied by Richard N. Hill (deceased). 36. BRNADA had ample time to observe and appreciate the danger that BRNADA posed to Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, and others (including the four (4) other vehicles struck by BRNADA that day)—time that was more than sufficient for BRNADA to slow, change lanes, or simply enter the shoulder to avoid creating a zone of risk to Plaintiff and others. Page 7 of 42 37. Instead, BRNADA remained in the same lane at a constant or near constant speed, slamming into the rear of Luehrman’s Jeep, then the Hill family, before also striking vehicles carrying Richard Smith (also transported to Sarasota Memorial Hospital), Joshua Pleasant, and Jamal Benson. 38. The RED XPRESS tractor-trailer driven by BRNADA impacted the Hill vehicle with such force that Blake Luehrman, resulting in a catastrophic concussion, deep cuts on head, face and arms, bruises, burn from airbag. 39. At all times material to this action, BRNADA failed to operate RED XPRESS’ tractor (and the trailer being towed) in a reasonably safe manner. 40. Critically, at no point before impact did BRNADA brake sufficiently to avoid striking traffic ahead. 41. At the moment of impact, BRNADA did not have the right-of-way. 42. As a result, BRNADA drove RED XPRESS’s tractor truck (and trailer being towed) into the Blake Luehrman, causing massive damage which necessitated medical care and treatment. THE HEAVY TRUCK AND TRAILER 43. During the subject crash, BRNADA operated a large commercial articulated tractor-trailer, at the request of and with permission from RED XPRESS; the combination vehicle consisted of two “units:” a. THE “HEAVY TRUCK:” the 2006 Volvo VNL670, with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (“GVWR”) of approximately 52,000 pounds, bearing VIN: 4V4NC9GH56N421077; and b. THE “TRAILER:” a 2023 Wabash 53’ trailer, with a GVWR of approximately 65,000 pounds, bearing (VIN or S/N: 1JJV532D0PL295481. Page 8 of 42 44. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS was the registered owner and legal title holder of the HEAVY TRUCK. 45. At all times material to this action, PENSKE was the registered owner and legal title holder of the TRAILER. 46. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS and BRNADA were the permissive users of the HEAVY TRUCK. 47. At all times material to this action, BRNADA was the permissive operator of the HEAVY TRUCK. 48. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS and BRNADA were the permissive users of the TRAILER. 49. At all times material to this action, BRNADA was the permissive operator of the TRAILER. 50. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER under the commercial motor carrier authority of RED XPRESS. 51. Critically, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER while RED XPRESS had actual or constructive knowledge of BRNADA’s long history of unsafe driving habits. 52. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS was in exclusive possession, custody, and or control of the HEAVY TRUCK. 53. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS was in exclusive possession, custody, and or control of the TRAILER. Page 9 of 42 54. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS transferred possession of the HEAVY TRUCK to BRNADA. 55. Just before the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS transferred possession of the TRAILER to BRNADA. 56. Before transferring possession of the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER to BRNADA, RED XPRESS failed to properly instruct, supervise, train, and reprimand BRNADA, up to and including termination. 57. In fact, RED XPRESS would never, under any circumstances, have ever terminated BRNADA, regardless of BRNADA’s conduct while driving a motor vehicle. 58. When BRNADA took possession of the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER, BRNADA operated it under the direction, control, and supervision of RED XPRESS while using and relying upon the Operating Authority of RED XPRESS. 59. BRNADA operated the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER for the benefit of RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E-TRANSPORT via transportation of goods then inside the trailer and/or additional goods yet to be loaded (the “SUBJECT LOAD”). THE OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES 60. Companies that direct or control the operation of commercial motor vehicles 1 are referred to as “motor carriers” by the state of Florida and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”)—formerly known as the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”). 2 1 49 C.F.R. 390.5 defines “commercial motor vehicle” to mean “any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property” which has a weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more. 2 In 1996, the ICC was replaced by the FMCSA, which now operates under the auspices of the United States Department of Transportation. See Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803; 1995-12-29. Page 10 of 42 61. The operation of Commercial Motor Vehicles (“CMVs”)—like the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER—is a dangerous and highly regulated enterprise, requiring carriers to comply with strict federal and state 3 requirements. 62. This makes sense, as CMVs are far more dangerous than even the largest passenger vehicle, due to the sheer size, weight, and overall mass of CMVs. 63. The commercial transportation of goods constitutes a hazardous activity presenting substantial dangers to members of the motoring public, especially when such transportation is not skillfully and carefully done. 64. Accordingly, Motor Carriers, Brokers, Third- Party Logistics Companies (“3PLs”), and Fourth-Party Logistics Companies (“4PLs”)—along with heavy truck owners, equipment providers, and others involved in the transportation cycle—all owe a duty of care to the public and tractor-trailer drivers alike. 65. In exchange for the privilege of operating commercial motor vehicles and heavy equipment on public roadways for profit, aspiring motor carriers are required to apply for a USDOT number and then obtain “operating authority” from the FMCSA. 66. Operating authority is conferred and tracked by the FMCSA through the assignment of a “MC” (or “MX or “FF”) number, unique to each motor carrier. 67. Only once an aspiring motor carrier obtains operating authority, may the carrier then operate commercial motor vehicles in commerce. 68. In order to do so, all aspiring motor carriers seeking operating authority must complete and sign a “FORM OP-1” application before an MC number will be assigned. 3 Like many states, Florida has adopted federal regulations directly into state law. See §316.302(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Page 11 of 42 69. Each FORM OP-1 application contains a detailed “Safety Certification” which must be signed under oath by the applicant. 70. Specifically, a FORM OP-1 applicant must swear that the company “has access to and is familiar with all applicable USDOT regulations relating to the safe operation of commercial vehicles.” 71. Further, the applicant must swear it “will comply with [all applicable] regulations.” This includes, inter alia, that the applicant will institute a mandatory driver safety training/orientation program: 72. Only once the FORM OP-1 is submitted and accepted by FMCSA, will the applicant be provided a unique “MC” number. 73. The MC number designates an applicant as a “Motor Carrier,” permitted to legally operate CMVs in limited circumstances. See e.g. 49 U.S.C. 13902, 49 C.F.R. part 368, part 368, part 392.9(a). Page 12 of 42 74. To operate within the state of Florida, a Motor Carrier must also apply for and obtain a USDOT or FLDOT number. See §316.70, FLA. STAT., et seq. 75. To ensure continued compliance with federal law, a Motor Carrier must actively and continuously review its own compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”), codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 76. Motor Carriers therefore accept an ongoing obligation to comply with safety regulations including, inter alia, the duty to train and supervise all drivers, inspect all CMVs, and perform specific and timely maintenance and repairs. 77. Accordingly, all Motor Carriers owe an ongoing, non-delegable duty of care to the motoring public. Page 13 of 42 78. Here, RED XPRESS and E-TRANSPORT each completed a binding FORM OP-1 illustrating their knowledge and understanding of owed duties to the motoring public, similar in form and function to the following: THE MOTOR CARRIER: RED XPRESS 79. At the time of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS possessed a USDOT number and Motor Carrier Operating Authority (USDOT number: 3475787). 80. As a result, at the time of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS was duty-bound to, inter alia: a. Have in place a system and an individual responsible for ensuring overall compliance with the FMCSRs; b. Be able to produce a copy of the FMCSRs and other regulations; c. Have in place a driver safety training/orientation program; d. Prepare and maintain an accident register; e. Be familiar with regulations governing driver qualifications and institute a system for overseeing driver qualification requirements; and f. Have in place policies and procedures consistent with regulations governing driving and operational safety of motor vehicles, including drivers’ hours of service and vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance. 81. Yet, at the time of the SUBJECT CRASH and in contravention of its oath, Defendant, RED XPRESS: a. failed to establish a system or individual responsible for ensuring overall compliance with applicable regulations; b. failed to establish a driver safety training/orientation program; c. fail to enact polices or procedures consistent with regulations governing driving and operational safety of motor vehicles; d. failed to enact polices or procedures consistent with regulations governing drivers’ hours of service; e. failed to enact polices or procedures consistent with regulations governing vehicle inspection, repair, or maintenance; and/or f. failed to properly train drivers in the transportation of goods via commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. Page 14 of 42 82. Specifically, by way of example and not limitation, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER despite BRNADA’s long history of unsafe driving habits. 83. Accordingly, RED XPRESS violated its duty via its FMCSA oath, along with corresponding obligations owed to fellow motorists to ensure the safety of the roads and highways. RED XPRESS’ STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT OF THE DRIVER 84. At all times material hereto, RED XPRESS was a business engaged in the commercial transportation of goods in commerce, in exchange for profit. 85. At all times material hereto, RED XPRESS was a business engaged in the commercial transportation of goods in commerce, in exchange for profit. 86. On the date of the subject crash, RED XPRESS tasked BRNADA with driving the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER for the financial benefit of RED XPRESS. 87. In so doing, RED XPRESS tasked BRNADA with traveling on public roads and highways near other motorists, thus affecting commercial motor vehicle safety. 88. Together, RED XPRESS and BRNADA were engaged in a business enterprise which affected commercial motor vehicle safety through the transportation of goods in commerce. 89. RED XPRESS owned, operated, leased, directed, and/or controlled the conduct of drivers—including BRNADA—as well as the operation of CMVs under RED XPRESS’s ownership and/or control. 90. As a result, at all times material hereto, RED XPRESS is and was the “Statutory Employer” of BRNADA because: a. By definition, Statutory Employers permit an individual— regardless of technical employment status or title—to directly affect commercial vehicle safety through the course of work performed. See 49 C.F.R. 390.5. Page 15 of 42 b. Accordingly, Statutory Employers possess a special, affirmative obligation to comply with regulations, including mandatory document retention, recording and self-reporting, and requirements governing the proper evaluation and qualification of drivers. c. Statutory Employers are considered employers of individual(s)—regardless of technical employment status or title—in derogation of the common law. 4 91. Thus, by operation of law, 5 RED XPRESS was—at all times material to this action—the Statutory Employer of BRNADA. 92. The decision of RED XPRESS to permit BRNADA to operate a commercial motor vehicle, including without proper evaluation, training, retraining, supervision, reprimand, and/or termination, violated the obligations RED XPRESS owed to the motoring public Statutory Employer of BRNADA. THE ROLE OF ARDENTX AND E-TRANSPORT IN TRANSPORTATION 93. The transportation of goods in interstate commerce constitutes an ultra-hazardous activity that presents substantial dangers to the driving public when not done safely, properly and with due caution; federal regulations, state statutes, industry standards and local ordinances govern the qualification, training, supervision, and retention of professional tractor-trailer drivers, as well as proper maintenance of commercial motor vehicles, required equipment for commercial motor vehicles, and safe operation practices of brokers, motor carriers, commercial motor vehicles, and professional truck drivers. 4 See 49 C.F.R. 390.5 (defining employer as “any person engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce who owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle in connection with that business or assigns employees to operate it”). 5 See 49 C.F.R. 390.5 (defining employee as anyone “who in the course of his or her employment directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety. Such term includes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle)”). Page 16 of 42 94. As part of a strategy to vertically integrate and take control of shipping arrangements via “broker” agreements, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT have developed a logistics network designed to arrange for the transportation of goods in interstate and intrastate commerce. 95. Depending on who you ask, ARDENTX is either a Division of E-TRANSPORT or else E-TRANSPORT is a Division of ARDENTX. 96. Regardless, in 2022, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT partnered up to provide logistics services to the shippers of goods—connecting shippers to commercial motor carriers like RED XPRESS. 97. As part of this strategy, ARDENTX and/or E-TRANSPORT routinely enter(s) into contracts with shippers, motor carriers, and receivers or warehouses to enable the transportation of goods on the roads and highways of Florida and beyond. 98. Approved motor carriers working for ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT do not negotiate payment; the payment amounts are pre-set by ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT for each shipment. 99. Once a motor carrier books an assignment from ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT, the carrier must then assign a driver and deliver the load. 100. Yet, rather than acting as a mere intermediary between contracting parties, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT actually provide “vett[ing]” services—researching the safety profile of motor carriers before connecting those motor carriers with shippers and receivers. 101. Further, during the process of delivery, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT use software and electronic hardware to track shipments and provide “24/7 updates” to shippers. Page 17 of 42 102. Among other “24/7 updates,” ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT have access to speed and location data—data which would alert ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT when a driver, like BRNADA, is driving too quickly or for too long. ARDENTX AND E-TRANSPORT: SELECTING AN UNSAFE MOTOR CARRIER 103. Shortly before the SUBJECT CRASH, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT entered into an agreement with RED XPRESS. 104. In their agreement, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT agreed to provide logistics services, connecting RED XPRESS with shippers, receivers, and warehouses. 105. In exchange, RED XPRESS agreed to pay ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT for logistics services based upon the shipment loads provided by ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT. 106. At no point in the business relationship did ARDENTX or E-TRANSPORT ever research the safety record of RED XPRESS or its driver, LEONARD BRNADA. 107. Alternately, ARDENTX or E-TRANSPORT did research the safety record of RED XPRESS and/or its driver, LEONARD BRNADA and, upon review of the results, ARDENTX and/or E-TRANSPORT made the decision to contract with RED XPRESS nonetheless. 108. During the entirety of the business relationship between ARDENTX/ E- TRANSPORT and RED XPRESS, RED XPRESS was a motor carrier operating without any safety systems whatsoever, transporting goods in commerce despite not having completed a Safety Audit to obtain a Safety Rating from FMCSA. 109. In contracting with RED XPRESS, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT took on the responsibility to comply with state and federal law to ensure the safe operation and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles and the use of safe and qualified commercial drivers and motor carrier. Page 18 of 42 110. Instead, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT failed to comply with the foregoing when they—individually or collectively—decided to contract with RED XPRESS: an unrated, inexperienced, unqualified, and unsafe motor carrier. 111. In sum, shortly after the formation of RED XPRESS and notwithstanding a total lack of safety systems and no available FMCSA Safety Audit or Safety Rating, ARDENTX and E-TRANSPORT made the decision that it would be prudent and safe to contract RED XPRESS to transport heavy loads on the roads and highways of the state of Florida. THE PENSKE TRAILER 112. In the immediate aftermath of the Subject Crash, PENSKE took possession of the TRAILER. 113. Upon representation by PENSKE representatives, PENSKE did not preserve the TRAILER after the Subject Crash. 114. In fact, PENSKE used the Subject Trailer such that the Subject Trailer is not, currently, in the same condition it was in at the time of the Subject Crash. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE OF RED XPRESS, LLC FOR CAUSING INJURY TO BLAKE LUEHRMAN 115. Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, realleges all paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 116. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER under RED XPRESS’s Motor Carrier Operating Authority. 117. RED XPRESS created a foreseeable zone of danger to other motorists and to Blake Luehrman, including the danger that injuries or death would occur to other motorists as the result of any collision resulting from BRNADA’s negligent operation of a commercial motor vehicle. Page 19 of 42 118. DUTY. RED XPRESS owed a non-delegable duty to the motoring public and to Blake Luehrman in that RED XPRESS was required to exercise reasonable care, including but not limited to: a. Entrust CMVs and Equipment to Safe Drivers. RED XPRESS owed a non-delegable duty to ensure that only a qualified and reasonably safe driver operated the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER on public roadways; and/or b. Operate in Conformity with Motor Carrier Safety Laws. RED XPRESS owed non-delegable duties to comply with motor carrier safety regulations and to ensure all drivers, statutory employees, vehicles, and equipment operate in compliance with motor carrier safety regulations; and/or c. Hire Qualified Drivers. RED XPRESS owed a non-delegable duty to hire only qualified drivers, capable of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner and fit to perform the tasks assigned, including during interactions with motorists; and/or d. Select Qualified Drivers. RED XPRESS owed a non-delegable duty to select only competent and careful drivers, capable of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner, including during interactions with motorists; and/or e. Retain Safe Drivers. RED XPRESS owed non-delegable duties to employ and retain only qualified drivers, capable of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner, and to investigate, retrain, re-assign, suspend, and/or discharge drivers who exhibited unsafe driving characteristics, violated traffic laws, and/or otherwise failed to comply with motor carrier safety regulations; and/or f. Train and Supervise Drivers. RED XPRESS owed a non- delegable duty to train and supervise drivers, including in motor carrier safety regulations, traffic laws, and proper CMV operational procedures; and/or g. Inspect and Maintain CMVs and Equipment. RED XPRESS owed non-delegable duties to inspect and to maintain, or otherwise ensure the inspection and maintenance of, the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER, including the non-delegable Page 20 of 42 duty to eliminate conditions which could impede the safe operation of the subject tractor trailer on public roadways. 119. BREACH. RED XPRESS breached its non-delegable duty and was therefore negligent towards Blake Luehrman in one or more of the following ways: a. Negligent Entrustment. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring that only a qualified and reasonably safe driver operated the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER on public roadways; and/or b. Negligent Operation. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable care in complying with motor carrier safety regulations and failed to ensure all drivers, statutory employees, vehicles, and equipment operate in compliance with motor carrier safety regulations; and/or c. Negligent Hiring. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring only qualified drivers, capable of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner and fit to perform the tasks assigned, including during interactions with motorists; and/or d. Negligent Selection. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable care to select competent and careful drivers, capable of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner, including during interactions with motorists; and/or e. Negligent Retention. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable care in employing and retaining only qualified drivers, capable of operating a CMV in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner, and failed to exercise reasonable care in investigating, retraining, re-assigning, suspending, and/or discharging drivers who exhibited unsafe driving characteristics, violated traffic laws, and/or otherwise violated motor carrier safety regulations; and/or f. Negligent Training/ Supervision. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable care in training and supervising drivers, including in motor carrier safety regulations, traffic laws, and/or proper CMV operational procedures; and/or g. Negligent Inspection and Maintenance. RED XPRESS failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and maintaining, or otherwise ensuring the inspection and maintenance of, the Page 21 of 42 HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER, including by failing to eliminate conditions which could impede the safe operation of the subject tractor trailer on public roadways. 120. CAUSATION. The negligence of RED XPRESS—described above—did directly and proximately cause the injuries suffered by Blake Luehrman in that RED XPRESS’ breach of duty did directly (and in natural and continuous sequence) produce or contribute substantially to the injuries, harms, losses, and damages suffered by Blake Luehrman. 121. DAMAGES. As a direct and proximate result of RED XPRESS’ negligence, Blake Luehrman was injured in and about the body and suffered, inter alia: permanent injury, disability, disfigurement, scarring, pain and suffering, aggravation of preexisting conditions, loss of past wages, loss of future earning capacity, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses in the care of treatment of said injuries, as well as noneconomic damages associated therewith. All injuries are permanent, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, and all injuries will require future medical treatment. John Liu will continue to suffer damages in the future. WHEREFORE, Blake Luehrman demands judgment against Defendant, RED XPRESS, Inc., including for an award of all damages, harms, losses, costs, and interest as allowed by law, as well as for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Blake Luehrman hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE VS. LEONARD BRNADA FOR CAUSING INJURY TO BLAKE LUEHRMAN 122. Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, realleges all paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 123. BRNADA created a foreseeable zone of danger to Plaintiff—including the danger that Blake Luehrman would be struck by a vehicle or otherwise injured by BRNADA—as Page 22 of 42 evidenced by, inter alia, BRNADA’s failure to exercise reasonable care when operating a commercial motor vehicle. 124. AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E-TRANSPORT utilized the services of BRNADA, to act for and/or on behalf of RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E-TRANSPORT while RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E- TRANSPORT exercised control and/or right of control over BRNADA; BRNADA did act negligently within the scope of this agency. 125. APPARENT AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, and E-TRANSPORT—by words or conduct—caused or allowed Blake Luehrman to believe that BRNADA was an agent of RED XPRESS, ARDENTX, E-TRANSPORT, or another person or entity authorized to act on behalf of the foregoing, and Blake Luehrman justifiably did so believe; BRNADA did act negligently within the scope of this apparent agency. 126. NON-DELEGABLE DUTY. BRNADA owed a non-delegable duty to exercise reasonable care to other motorists, including Blake Luehrman, in one or more of the following ways: a. Inspecting the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK; and/or b. Maintaining the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK; and/or c. Operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner on public roadways; and/or d. Maintaining a safe and controllable operating speed while operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or e. Yielding to others using the roadway while operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or f. Executing driving maneuvers safely and with due caution for other motorists; and/or g. Keeping a proper lookout while operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER. Page 23 of 42 127. BREACH OF NON-DELEGABLE DUTY. BRNADA breached his non- delegable duty owed to the motoring public and to Blake Luehrman and was therefore negligent in one or more of the following ways: a. Failing to inspect the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK; and/or b. Failing to maintain the condition of the HEAVY TRUCK; and/or c. Failing to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER in a reasonably safe and non-negligent manner on public roadways; and/or d. Failing to maintain a safe and controllable operating speed while operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or e. Failing to yield to others using the roadway while operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER; and/or f. Failing to execute driving maneuvers safely and with due caution for other motorists; and/or g. Failing to keep a proper lookout while operating the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER. 128. CAUSATION. The negligence of BRNADA—described herein—did directly and proximately cause the injuries suffered by Blake Luehrman in that BRNADA’s breach of duty did directly (and in natural and continuous sequence) produce or contribute substantially to the injuries, harms, losses, and damages suffered by Blake Luehrman. 129. DAMAGES. As a direct and proximate result of BRNADA’ negligence, Blake Luehrman was injured in and about the body and suffered, inter alia: permanent injury, disability, disfigurement, scarring, pain and suffering, aggravation of preexisting conditions, loss of past wages, loss of future earning capacity, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses in the care of treatment of said injuries, as well as noneconomic damages associated therewith. All injuries are permanent, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, and all injuries will require future medical treatment. Blake Luehrman will continue to suffer damages in the future. WHEREFORE, Blake Luehrman demands judgment against Defendant, LEONARD BRNADA, including for an award of all damages, harms, losses, costs, and interest as allowed by Page 24 of 42 law, as well as for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Blake Luehrman hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. COUNT III VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF RED XPRESS, LLC FOR INJURIES TO BLAKE LUEHRMAN 130. Plaintiff, Blake Luehrman, realleges all paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 131. At all times material to this action, RED XPRESS permitted BRNADA to operate the HEAVY TRUCK and TRAILER under RED XPRESS’ Federal Motor Carrier Operating Authority. 132. AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS utilized the services of BRNADA, to act for and on behalf of RED XPRESS while RED XPRESS exercised control and/or right of control over BRNADA, during which time BRNADA acted negligently within the scope of that agency. 133. APPARENT AGENCY. On the date of the SUBJECT CRASH, RED XPRESS— by its words or conduct—caused or allowed others (including Blake Luehrman) to believe that BRNADA was an agent of RED XPRESS, during which time BRNADA acted negligently within the scope of apparent agency. 134. STATUTORY EMPLOYMENT. By operation of law, RED XPRESS was a Statutory Employer 6 of BRNADA on t