IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CARLY BENSON, individually,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENID LUMA, individually; and
LUX LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendants.
FILED
DISTRICT COURT
OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
March 6, 2026 4:17 PM
Case No. RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK
Case Number CJ-2026-1707
PETITION
COMES NOW the Plaintiff Carly Benson, individually, by and through her attorney of record and hereby submits the following causes of action against the Defendants Enid Luma and Lux Logistics, LLC.
JURISDICTION/VENUE
1. That Plaintiff Carly Benson (hereinafter also referred to as "Plaintiff") was, at all relevant times, a citizen and resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
2. That Defendant Enid Luma (hereinafter also referred to as "Defendant Luma") was, at all relevant times, a citizen and resident of the State of Wisconsin.
3. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC (hereinafter also referred to as "Defendant Lux") was, at all relevant times, a Wisconsin limited liability company.
4. That the collision which gives rise to this litigation occurred on or about March 18, 2024, in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma (hereinafter this collision may also be referred to as the "subject collision").
5. That Plaintiff alleges injuries and damages in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) exclusive of costs and interest.
6. That this Court has jurisdiction and venue over these causes of action and the parties herein.
CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, and for her Cause of Action against the Defendant Luma and Defendant Lux and reasserts, and realleges, in toto, and adopts by material reference the allegations contained above, and further alleges and states as follows:
8. That on March 18, 2024, Defendant Enid Luma was operating a 2018 Freightliner Cascadia commercial motor vehicle owned by and/or in the course and scope of employment with Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC, while traveling southbound on Interstate 35 near SE 89th Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma (hereinafter referred to as the "subject roadway").
9. That on March 18, 2024, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Plaintiff was lawfully operating a 2013 Ford Mustang southbound in the middle lane of travel on Interstate 35 near SE 89th Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
10. That Defendant Luma negligently and/or recklessly operated the commercial motor vehicle on the subject roadway in such a manner as to make an unsafe lane change from the inside lane into the middle lane, causing the front right portion of Defendant Luma's commercial vehicle to strike the left rear and left side portions of Plaintiff's vehicle.
11. That, due to Defendant Luma's acts and/or conduct and/or omissions in the operation of the commercial vehicle he was driving so as to cause the subject collision, Plaintiff sustained bodily injuries and damages.
12. That Plaintiff alleges that the cause of her bodily injuries and damages is/are due to the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of Defendant Luma, individually, by one or more of the following:
a. Defendant Luma's careless and/or reckless and/or unsafe lane change while operating a commercial motor vehicle on Interstate 35, so as to cause the subject collision;
b. Defendant Luma's failure to exercise due care in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle, so as to cause the subject collision;
c. Defendant Luma's failure to utilize and/or use braking and/or steering mechanisms of a commercial motor vehicle, so as to avoid the subject collision;
d. Defendant Luma's failure to devote full time and attention to the operation of a commercial motor vehicle on a public roadway, so as to cause the subject collision;
e. Defendant Luma's failure to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully traveling in adjacent lanes of travel, and to act in such a manner as to avoid the subject collision;
f. Defendant Luma's operation of a commercial motor vehicle while being distracted in such a manner as to prevent Defendant Luma from stopping, slowing down, or remaining in his lane of travel to avoid colliding into Plaintiff's vehicle;
g. Defendant Luma's failure to ensure that the lane into which he was changing was clear and safe before executing the lane change;
h. Defendant Luma's failure to maintain a proper and safe distance from other vehicles lawfully traveling on Interstate 35; and/or
i. Defendant Luma's failure to yield the right of way to Plaintiff's vehicle which was lawfully traveling in the middle lane of Interstate 35.
13. In addition to the common law acts of negligence set forth above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Luma is liable for the Plaintiff's bodily injuries and damages under the theory of negligence per se, including violations of applicable Oklahoma traffic statutes and/or regulations and/or ordinances and/or other applicable Oklahoma law relating to unsafe lane changes and the duty to exercise due care in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle.
14. That at the time of the subject collision, Defendant Luma was acting as an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC, and was acting within the course and scope of his agency and/or employment with Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC.
15. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC owned and/or controlled the 2018 Freightliner Cascadia commercial motor vehicle operated by Defendant Luma at the time of the subject collision, and Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of its agent, servant, and/or employee, Defendant Luma.
16. That as a result of the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of the Defendants, one and/or both of them, Plaintiff has sustained and/or will suffer permanent painful bodily injuries; has incurred and/or will incur reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of her injuries; has incurred and/or will incur medical expenses associated with reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of her injuries; has suffered and will suffer in the future emotional and/or physical pain and suffering; has suffered and/or will suffer loss of enjoyment of life; and has suffered and/or will suffer loss of earnings and earning capacity due to her inability to work since the subject collision in a total amount of at least One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) actual damages, exclusive of costs
and interest.
17. That Plaintiff further alleges that the act(s) and/or conduct and/or omission(s) of the Defendants, one and/or both of them, were at least reckless and/or amount to even wanton and/or gross negligence relative to Defendant Luma's operation of the subject commercial motor vehicle in such a fashion and manner as to cause the subject collision, including but not limited to the unsafe and reckless lane change executed without proper lookout or regard for the safety of other motorists lawfully traveling on Interstate 35. Said reckless and/or grossly negligent and/or wanton conduct would entitle the Plaintiff to an award of exemplary or punitive damages as against the Defendants, one and/or both of them. Therefore, Plaintiff also seeks an award of exemplary or punitive damages as against the Defendants, one and/or both of them, in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as punitive damages, exclusive of costs and interest.
CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, and for her Cause of Action against Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC reasserts, and realleges, in toto, and adopts by material reference the allegations contained above, and further alleges and states as follows:
18. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC owned and/or operated the 2018 Freightliner Cascadia commercial motor vehicle involved in the subject collision.
19. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC employed and/or engaged Defendant Enid Luma as a driver of its commercial motor vehicle at the time of the subject collision.
20. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC owed a duty to the public, including Plaintiff, to hire, train, supervise, and retain only competent and qualified drivers of commercial motor vehicles.
21. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC breached its duty to the public and to Plaintiff by one or more of the following acts and/or omissions:
a. Failure to properly screen and/or hire qualified drivers;
b. Failure to conduct adequate background checks on drivers;
c. Failure to provide proper training on safe driving practices, including safe lane changes;
d. Failure to adequately supervise Defendant Luma's driving;
e. Failure to ensure compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations;
f. Failure to monitor driver safety records; and/or
g. Negligent retention of Defendant Luma as a driver when Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC knew or should have known that Defendant Luma was dangerous and/or incompetent.
22. That Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC's violations of FMCSA regulations regarding driver qualifications, training, and supervision constitute negligence per se.
23. That as a result of the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of the Lux Logistics, LLC, Plaintiff has sustained and/or will suffer permanent painful bodily injuries; has incurred and/or will incur reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of her injuries; has incurred and/or will incur medical expenses associated with reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of her injuries; has suffered and will suffer in the future emotional and/or physical pain and suffering; has suffered and/or will suffer loss of enjoyment of life; and has suffered and/or will suffer loss of earnings and earning capacity
due to her inability to work since the subject collision in a total amount of at least One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) actual damages, exclusive of costs and interest.
24. That Plaintiff further alleges that the act(s) and/or conduct and/or omission(s) of Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC in hiring, training, and supervising Defendant Luma were at least reckless and/or amount to even wanton and/or gross negligence. Said reckless and/or grossly negligent and/or wanton conduct would entitle the Plaintiff to an award of exemplary or punitive damages as against Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC. Therefore, Plaintiff also seeks an award of exemplary or punitive damages as against Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as punitive damages, exclusive of costs and interest.
CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, and for her Cause of Action against Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC reasserts, and realleges, in toto, and adopts by material reference the allegations contained above, and further alleges and states as follows:
27. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC entrusted the 2018 Freightliner Cascadia commercial motor vehicle to Defendant Enid Luma for operation on the date of the subject collision.
28. That Defendant Luma was incompetent, inexperienced, and/or had dangerous propensities as a driver of commercial motor vehicles, as evidenced by his unsafe lane change, failure to maintain proper lookout, and reckless operation of the commercial motor vehicle which caused the subject collision.
29. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC knew or should have known of Defendant Luma’s incompetence, inexperience, and/or dangerous propensities as a driver of commercial motor vehicles.
30. That despite such knowledge, Defendant Luma negligently accepted entrustment of the commercial motor vehicle from Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC and operated said vehicle on Interstate 35 in a manner that posed a danger to the public, including Plaintiff.
31. That Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC is liable for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff by one or more of the following:
a. Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC’s failure to provide proper and/or unambiguous orders, instructions and/or training, or Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC providing and/or giving improper and/or ambiguous orders and/or instructions and/or training to Defendant Luma, so as to avoid the causing of the subject collision;
b. Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC’s failing to make and/or enact and/or enforce proper policies and/or regulations and/or procedures for operation of their owned and/or controlled motor vehicles, so as to avoid causing of the subject collision;
c. Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC’s employment and/or retention of improperly trained persons, generally, and Defendant Luma, specifically, as to employment and/or work relative to the operation of vehicles owned and/or control and/or possessed by Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC that involve risk of harm to others so as to avoid the causing of the subject collision;
d. Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC’s failure to properly supervise the activity of employees, generally, and Defendant Luma, specifically, so as to avoid the causing of the subject collision; and/or
e. Defendant Lux Logistics, LLC’s permitting, or failing to prevent, negligent or other tortious conduct by persons, generally, and Defendant Luma, specifically, so as to avoid the causing of the subject collision.
32. That a claim for negligent entrustment is a claim of negligence “that arises from the act of entrustment, not the relationship of the parties.” Fox v. Mize, 2018 OK 74, ¶ 9, 428 P.3d 314 (citing Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Company, LLC., 2013 OK 48, ¶ 17, 306 P.3d 544, 550).
33. That a claim for negligent entrustment is not a claim of vicarious liability, but it is rather a claim of direct liability against the supplier of “chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or should know is likely to use the chattel in a way dangerous and likely to cause harm to others.” Fox v. Mize, 2018 OK 74, ¶ 9, 428 P.3d 314 (citing Pierce v. Okla. Prop. & Cas. Inc. Co., 1995 OK 78, ¶ 17, 901 P.2d 819, 823).
34. That as a result of the acts and/or conduct and/or omissions of the Lux Logistics, LLC, Plaintiff has sustained and/or will suffer permanent painful bodily injuries; has incurred and/or will incur reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of her injuries; has incurred and/or will incur medical expenses associated with reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment of her injuries; has suffered and will suffer in the future emotional and/or physical pain and suffering; has suffered and/or will suffer loss of enjoyment of life; and has suffered and/or will suffer loss of earnings and earning capacity due to her inability to work since the subject collision in a total amount of at least One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) actual damages, exclusive of costs and interest.
35. That Plaintiff further alleges that the act(s) and/or conduct and/or omission(s) of Defendant Luma in negligently accepting entrustment of the commercial motor vehicle and operating said vehicle in such a reckless and dangerous manner as to cause the subject collision were at least reckless and/or amount to even wanton and/or gross negligence. Said reckless and/or grossly negligent and/or wanton conduct would entitle the Plaintiff
to an award of exemplary or punitive damages as against Defendant Luma. Therefore, Plaintiff also seeks an award of exemplary or punitive damages as against Defendant Luma in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as punitive damages, exclusive of costs and interest.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment pursuant to applicable Oklahoma law as against the Defendants in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), by way of all legally recognized damages exclusive of costs and interest, together with the awarding lawful costs, interest, and together with any and all further relief justified in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas J. Steece - OBA #11531
OKLAHOMA LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC
12313 Hidden Forest Blvd.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142
(T) 405-943-8300
(F) 405-603-7112
(E)
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
