Tony Christopher Black v. Gold Sky Trans, Inc.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TONY CHRISTOPHER BLACK, Plaintiff, v. GOLD SKY TRANS, INC., a foreign for-profit business corporation, and MANPREET SINGH, an individual, Defendants. Case No. CJ-2026-1655 PAUL HESSE PETITION COME NOW, Plaintiff, Tony Christopher Black ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel of record, Parrish Devaughn, PLLC, and for his causes of action against Defendants, Gold Sky Trans Inc. ("Defendant Gold Sky") and Manpreet Singh ("Defendant Singh") (collectively "Defendants"), alleges and states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. This case arises out of a rearend automobile collision that occurred on or about September 22, 2024, at or near the intersection of I-40 West and Fort Reno Road, in El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff is a resident of Blaine County, Oklahoma. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gold Sky is a foreign for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California and with its principal place of business located at 3754 Armando Court, Ceres, CA 95307. Defendant Gold Sky may be served with process through its registered agent, Harneet Kaur, at 3754 Armando Court, Ceres, CA 95307 or through its Blanket Company, #1 A+ Agents of Process, Inc., by serving their Process Agent, Peggy Maeger, at 1018 N. 4376 Road, Fort Towson, OK 74735. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Singh, an individual, is a resident of Sacramento County, California. 5. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Singh was an employee and/or agent of Defendant Gold Sky and was acting within the course and scope of his employment/agency with Gold Sky. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to OKLA. CONST. art. VII, § 7(a). 7. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants since the subject collision occurred in Canadian County. 8. Venue is proper in the District for Canadian County. FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 9. On or about September 22, 2024, Plaintiff was traveling eastbound in the left lane of Interstate-40, in El Reno, Oklahoma. 10. At the same time, Defendant Singh was also traveling eastbound on Interstate-40, but in the right lane alongside Plaintiff's vehicle. 11. Due to Defendant Singh’s recklessness, gross negligence, negligence and/or actions and conduct, the driver’s side of his vehicle collided with passenger side of Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing Plaintiff to lose control, strike another semi-truck, and depart the roadway (the “Crash”). 12. As a direct and proximate result of the Crash, Plaintiff sustained personal injuries and damages. 13. Defendants Gold Sky and Singh’s actions and omissions proximately and directly caused the injuries to the Plaintiff. 14. Defendant Gold Sky’s negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention and entrustment of Defendant Singh were also the proximate causes of Plaintiff’s injuries. 15. At all relevant times, Defendant Singh was acting in the course and scope of his employment and/or agency relationship with Defendant Gold Sky and acting in furtherance of a mission for Defendant Gold Sky’s benefit and subject to its control. 16. Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant Gold Sky is vicariously liable for Defendant Singh’s recklessness, gross negligence, negligence, and/or actions. 17. Additionally, Defendant Singh was driving a vehicle owned and maintained by Defendant Gold Sky and was operating the vehicle under Defendant Gold Sky’s commercial operating authority. COUNT ONE CLAIM OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AGAINST DEFENDANT GOLD SKY Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 18. At the time of the Crash and immediately prior thereto, Defendant Singh was acting either in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Gold Sky, or as an agent of or on behalf of Defendant Gold Sky. 19. At the time of the Crash and immediately prior thereto, Defendant Singh was engaged in the furtherance of Defendant Gold Sky. 20. At the time of the Crash and immediately prior thereto, Defendant Singh was engaged in accomplishing a task for which Defendant Gold Sky was employed. 21. Defendant Gold Sky is vicariously liable for the recklessness and negligence of Defendant Singh by virtue of the doctrine of respondeat superior. COUNT TWO NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 22. On or about September 22, 2024, Defendant Singh was reckless, grossly negligent, and/or negligent while in the operation of his commercial automobile. 23. Plaintiff sustained injuries because of Defendants' negligence and gross negligence when Defendant Singh: • Failed to keep such lookout as a person of ordinary prudence would have kept under the same or similar circumstances; • Failed to maintain a single lane; • Failed to use signal indicating intent to change lanes; • Failed to ensure safety while overtaking a vehicle in the right lane; • Failed to take reasonable care in monitoring the flow of traffic; • Failed to operate the vehicle in a safe manner; • Failed to take proper evasive action; • Failed to devote full time and attention to the roadway; • Failed to control speed; • Failed to keep the vehicle under proper control so as to avoid hitting another vehicle; • Failed to adhere to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the applicable rules of the road; • Operated the vehicle without due regard for the rights of others; • Operated the vehicle at a speed greater then is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing; and • Operated the vehicle while distracted. 24. Defendants owed a duty consistent with the foregoing and breached each of the foregoing duties. 25. These breaches were both the cause in fact and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. 26. Defendant Gold Sky is vicariously liable for the recklessness, gross negligence, and/or negligence of Defendant Singh by virtue of the doctrine of respondeat superior. 27. Moreover, Defendant Gold Sky was independently reckless, grossly negligent, and/or negligent, and their recklessness, gross negligence, and/or negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries. 28. As a result of Defendants’ recklessness, gross negligence, and/or negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental injuries for which he is entitled to recover damages. 29. Additionally, Defendants’ actions were done with a disregard of the substantial risk of severe bodily injury and in want of slight care and diligence. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages. COUNT THREE NEGLIGENCE PER SE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 30. Defendants’ conduct, described herein, constitutes an unexcused breach of duty imposed by the Oklahoma Rules of the Road. 31. Further, Defendants violated countless federal motor carrier safety standards. 32. Plaintiff is a member of the class that the aforementioned laws were designed to protect. 33. Defendants’ unexcused breach of the duty imposed by statute proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injuries described herein. COUNT FOUR NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST DEFENDANT GOLD SKY Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 34. Defendant Gold Sky had a duty to hire competent and qualified employees, including Defendant Singh. 35. Gold Sky breached its duty of care, in numerous ways, including but not limited to, at least the following ways: • Failing to conduct a reasonable and adequate interview of Defendant Singh as a potential employee; • Failing to properly follow up on information not provided by Defendant Singh in the interview process; • Failing to conduct a proper employment and background check of Defendant Singh; • Failing to comply with applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; • Failing to sufficiently investigate Defendant Singh’s training, prior employment, criminal record, and past; • Failing to perform the required screening, testing, and physical of Defendant Singh; • Failing to adopt proper policies and procedures regarding the interview of a potential employee who will be driving a tractor/trailer interstate on federal highways; and • Such other and further acts of negligence as may be shown in the trial of this cause as discovery progresses. 36. As a direct and proximate result of Gold Sky’s breaches of their duties, Plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental injuries for which he is entitled to recover damages. 37. Additionally, Defendant Gold Sky’s actions were done with a disregard of the substantial risk of severe bodily injury and in want of slight care and diligence. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages. COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENT TRAINING AGAINST DEFENDANT GOLD SKY Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 38. Defendant Gold Sky had a duty to adequately train commercial motor vehicle drivers, including Defendant Singh. 39. Defendant Gold Sky breached its duty of care by: • Failing to explain and demonstrate their safety policies and procedures to Defendant Singh; • Failing to provide the necessary training to Defendant Singh regarding driving this vehicle, vehicle safety, safety classes, how to properly and safely drive the vehicle, the proper method to maintain a vehicle, the proper way and the necessity of keeping the vehicle clean and in proper working order, and in all matters regarding the proper and safe operation of a vehicle and the maintenance of a vehicle in various situations; • Failing to properly train their drivers, including Defendant Singh, regarding all aspects of driver safety; • Failing to properly train and educate their drivers, including Defendant Singh, on applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; • Failing to train their employees, including Defendant Singh, regarding safe and proper operation of a vehicle such as a person and/or company of ordinary care would have done in the same or similar circumstances; • Failing to provide and/or require regular follow-up driver education and training; and • Such other and further acts of negligence as may be shown in the trial of this cause as discovery progresses. 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Gold Sky’s breaches of duty, Plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental injuries for which he is entitled to recover damages. 41. Additionally, Defendant Gold Sky’s actions were done with a disregard to a substantial risk of severe bodily injury and in want of slight care and diligence. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages. COUNT SIX NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, RETENTION, AND MONITORING AGAINST DEFENDANT GOLD SKY Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 42. Defendant Gold Sky had a duty to supervise, retain and monitor commercial motor vehicle drivers, including Defendant Singh. 43. Defendant Gold Sky breached their duties of care by: • Failing to monitor Defendant Singh to make sure that he was complying with policies and procedures; • Failing to interview and test Defendant Singh to make sure he had read, and was familiar with, understood, and followed the company policies and procedures; • Failing to implement proper policies and procedures for its employees, including Defendant Singh, regarding driver safety and vehicle safety; • Failing to document and make a determination regarding fault in the accident made the basis of this suit; • Failing to supervise and monitor Defendant Singh to ensure that he was keeping the vehicle properly maintained; and • Such other and further acts of negligence as may be shown in the trial of this cause as discovery progresses. 44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Gold Sky’s breaches of duty, Plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental injuries for which he is entitled to recover damages. 45. Additionally, Defendant Gold Sky’s actions were done with a disregard to a substantial risk of severe bodily injury and in want of slight care and diligence. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages. COUNT SEVEN NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT GOLD SKY Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 46. Defendant Gold Sky owned the vehicle Defendant Singh was operating at the time of the subject incident. 47. Defendant Gold Sky is liable for its negligent entrustment of their vehicle to Defendant Singh, as they knew or should have known that Defendant Singh was not competent to drive the vehicle entrusted to him and/or Defendant Singh would operate the vehicle in a careless manner. 48. Plaintiffs allege and will prove that Defendant Gold Sky’s liability for negligent entrustment arises because: (1) it owned the vehicle Defendant Singh was operating at the time of the subject incident; (2) Defendant Gold Sky entrusted the vehicle Defendant Singh; (3) Defendant Singh is an incompetent, insufficiently experienced, and/or reckless driver; (4) Defendant Gold Sky knew or should have known Defendant Singh was an incompetent, insufficiently experienced, and/or reckless driver; (5) Defendant Gold Sky should have drug tested Defendant Singh before allowing him to operate one of its vehicles; (6) Defendant Singh was reckless, grossly negligent, and/or negligent on the occasion in question; and (7) that Defendant Singh’s negligence proximately caused the subject incident. 49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Gold Sky's breach of duty, Plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental injuries for which he is entitled to recover damages. 50. Additionally, Defendant Gold Sky's actions were done with a disregard to a substantial risk of severe bodily injury and in want of slight care and diligence. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages. COUNT EIGHT RATIFICATION AGAINST DEFENDANT GOLD SKY Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs above and further allege and state as follows: 51. Defendant Gold Sky is responsible for the recklessness, gross negligence and/or negligence of Defendant Singh under the theory of ratification because Defendant Gold Sky: • Retained Defendant Singh after he committed the underlying tortious acts; • Knew of Defendant Singh's tortious acts; • Recognized that Defendant Singh will likely continue to be negligent if he is retained; • Recognized that Defendant Singh will likely continue to be grossly negligent if he is retained; • Failed to take adequate measures to prevent Defendant Singh from committing future tortious acts; and • Otherwise adopted, confirmed, or failed to repudiate Defendant Singh's negligent and grossly negligent conduct after Defendant Gold Sky gained knowledge of the conduct. 52. As a result of Singh's recklessness, gross negligence and/or negligence, which Defendant Gold Sky ratified, Plaintiff suffered severe physical and mental injuries. 53. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for his injuries. 54. Additionally, Defendant Singh’s actions were done with a disregard of the substantial risk of severe bodily injury and in want of slight care and diligence. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages. DAMAGES 55. The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendants, whether singularly or in combination, were the direct and proximate cause of the damage sustained by Plaintiff. These damages include, but are not limited to, all allowable damages permitted under the law, including punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for an amount which is fair and reasonable in excess of $75,000.00, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest herein incurred and expended, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, Nathan D. Rex, OBA #31694 Greg S. Keogh, OBA #33933 PARRISH DEVAUGHN, PLLC 3601 N. Classen Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73118 405-444-4444 405-232-0058 (f) [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff