CJ-2026-00024 - Thomas Dunlap v. Lamarc Bradford

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut straight to the wild part: a truck driver allegedly lost a piece of his rig on the highway, left it there like a deadly piece of litter, and some poor passenger—Thomas Dunlap—ended up slamming into it like this was a Mad Max outtake. Now, the driver and his company are staring down a $150,000 lawsuit, with accusations of negligence, gross negligence, and corporate incompetence swirling like tumbleweeds on I-40. This isn’t just a fender bender—it’s a full-blown highway horror story, and we’re here for it.

So who are these players in this interstate drama? On one side, we’ve got Thomas Dunlap, the plaintiff, who—by his own account—was minding his business, riding shotgun in a car being driven lawfully by someone else. No wild stunts, no illegal lane changes, no questionable life choices. Just a regular guy, presumably enjoying a podcast or maybe arguing about snacks, when—BAM—his world turned into a scene from a car commercial gone wrong. On the other side? Lamarc Bradford, a professional trucker with a Class A license, which means he’s not just some dude who passed a driving test—he’s certified to haul freight across state lines. And then there’s Shergill Transit Inc, the company that owns the rig Bradford was driving, holds the DOT authority, and—allegedly—failed at pretty much every aspect of responsible trucking.

Now, let’s talk about what actually went down. On June 21, 2024—same day this lawsuit was filed, which is either poetic or suspiciously convenient—Dunlap’s ride was cruising along I-40 near Weatherford, Oklahoma, a stretch of road that’s seen more than its fair share of drama, but probably not this kind. According to the filing, Bradford was operating a commercial motor vehicle (read: a big ol’ semi) when something went very wrong. Not a full-blown jackknife, not a rollover, but something almost more bizarre: part of his truck came off and was left in the roadway. Now, we don’t know if it was a tire, a brake drum, a hubcap the size of a manhole cover—but whatever it was, it stayed behind like a greased bowling ball on the highway. And Dunlap’s car? It hit it. Hard enough to cause injuries, medical bills, pain and suffering, and property damage—all totaling, in Dunlap’s estimation, more than $75,000 in actual damages. Oh, and he wants another $75,000 in punitive damages, which is the legal equivalent of saying, “Y’all didn’t just mess up—you messed up on purpose or at least with zero regard for human life.”

But why is this in court? Let’s break it down like we’re explaining it to a jury of our peers (who are probably eating chips and judging everyone). First claim: Negligence and gross negligence against Lamarc Bradford. Dunlap’s saying, “Bro, you’re a pro driver. You’re supposed to check your truck before you drive it. You’re supposed to not lose parts of it on the interstate.” The petition lists a whole menu of possible screw-ups: speeding, failing to maintain control, driving carelessly, not keeping a proper lookout, following too closely (though we’re not sure who he was tailgating), and—most damning—failing to do a mandatory pre-trip inspection. That last one is like showing up to defuse a bomb without checking your tools. You don’t skip that. And then there’s the “gross negligence” angle—meaning it wasn’t just a mistake, it was a “reckless disregard” for safety. That’s the kind of thing that gets you punitive damages, which aren’t about covering costs—they’re about punishment. Like, “We’re going to make you hurt financially so you don’t do this again.”

Second claim: Vicarious liability against Shergill Transit Inc. Fancy Latin term, simple idea: the company is on the hook because Bradford was their employee, driving their truck, on their dime, under their DOT number. So even if the company didn’t personally lose a tire on the highway, they’re still responsible for what their guy did. It’s like if your employee steals office supplies and gets caught—you don’t go to jail, but you might have to pay for it. Except here, the “office supplies” are parts of a semi, and the “theft” is replaced with “endangering public safety.”

Third claim: Negligence by the company itself. This is where it gets spicy. Dunlap isn’t just saying the driver messed up—he’s saying the company was negligent in how they ran their entire operation. They allegedly failed to maintain the vehicle, failed to train Bradford properly, and—this is the real tea—negligently entrusted him with a commercial vehicle. That’s a legal term of art, but it basically means: “You gave this guy a 30-ton death machine even though you knew or should have known he was a danger.” The filing even suggests Shergill didn’t do proper background checks, didn’t monitor his driving history, and kept him employed despite red flags. In trucking, that’s like hiring a pilot who’s failed every flight exam but letting him fly because he has a nice smile.

Now, what does Dunlap want? $150,000—split evenly between actual damages ($75k for medical bills, car repairs, pain, etc.) and punitive damages ($75k to really make a point). Is that a lot? For a car crash with injuries, sure—it’s serious money. But in the world of trucking lawsuits? It’s not crazy high. Big rigs cause massive damage all the time, and verdicts can hit millions. So $150k is more like a “we’re serious, but we’re not trying to bankrupt you” number. Still, for a small carrier like Shergill Transit, that could sting. And punitive damages? Those are rare. Courts don’t hand them out like participation trophies. You’ve got to prove recklessness, not just a bad day at the wheel.

Our take? Look, truckers have a hard job. Long hours, tight schedules, trucks that cost more than most houses. But when you’re hauling a vehicle that can kill a family of four in one misstep, you don’t get to half-ass it. And if Shergill Transit really didn’t train Bradford, didn’t inspect the truck, and didn’t check his record? That’s not just bad business—that’s a recipe for disaster. The most absurd part? That someone could lose a literal piece of their truck on a major interstate and just… keep driving? Like, did no warning light go off? Did no other driver honk? Did Bradford just glance in the mirror and go, “Huh. Guess I’m one tire lighter now. Onward!”? And the company—did they even notice? Or was this just another Tuesday at Shergill Transit?

We’re not saying Dunlap didn’t have a bad day—we’re saying the system allowed this to happen. And if the allegations are true, then this lawsuit isn’t just about one crash. It’s about accountability. It’s about making sure companies don’t treat safety like an optional add-on. So while we can’t say who’s really to blame (again, allegations only!), we can say this: if you’re going to operate a vehicle that weighs more than a small elephant, maybe—just maybe—check that all the parts are still attached before you hit the highway. It’s not that hard. And if you’re a trucking company? Maybe hire someone who won’t turn I-40 into a demolition derby by accident.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But even we know this: loose lug nuts shouldn’t be a plaintiff’s best friend.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Custer County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Monty L. Cain, Anthony M. Alfonso

Cain Law Office

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Thomas Dunlap individual
Rep: Monty L. Cain, Anthony M. Alfonso

Defendants

Lamarc Bradford individual
Shergill Transit Inc business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence/Gross Negligence	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Lamarc Bradford was negligent and grossly negligent in operating a commercial motor vehicle, causing Plaintiff's injuries and damages
2	Vicarious Liability	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Shergill Transit Inc is vicariously liable for Defendant Lamarc Bradford's negligent acts
3	Negligence of Defendant Shergill Transit Inc	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Shergill Transit Inc was negligent in maintaining and entrusting a commercial motor vehicle to Defendant Lamarc Bradford

Petition Text

1,485 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CUSTER COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA THOMAS DUNLAP, Plaintiff, v. LAMARC BRADFORD, & SHERGILL TRANSIT INC, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Thomas Dunlap, for his cause of action against Defendants Lamarc Bradford (hereinafter “Defendant Lamarc Bradford”), and Shergill Transit Inc, alleges and states: FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. That on or about June 21, 2024, at or near mile marker 75 on Interstate 40 in Weatherford, Custer County, Oklahoma, Defendant Lamarc Bradford negligently operated a commercial motor vehicle and/or negligently maintained the truck and/or Defendant Shergill negligently maintained the commercial vehicle, causing part of the vehicle to remain in the roadway, causing the vehicle in which Plaintiff Thomas Dunlap was a passenger to strike the vehicle part that remained in the roadway from Defendant Lamarc’s vehicle. 2. That at all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Thomas Dunlap was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a third party that was driven lawfully. 3. That at all material times mentioned herein, Defendant Lamarc Bradford was a professional tractor-trailer driver, held a Class A driver’s license and was operating a commercial motor vehicle. 4. That at all material times mentioned herein, Defendant Lamarc Bradford was operating a commercial motor vehicle owned by Defendant Shergill Transit Inc. 5. Upon information and belief, the commercial motor vehicle was being operated under the US DOT operating authority of Defendant Shergill Transit Inc, DOT # 721457 6. That at all material times mentioned herein, Defendant Lamarc Bradford was acting in his capacity as an employee and/or agent of Defendant Shergill Transit Inc, was in the course and scope of his employment, statutory employment or agency with Defendant Shergill Transit Inc. 7. That at all material times mentioned herein, Defendant Lamarc Bradford was operating the commercial motor vehicle at issue with Defendant Shergill Transit Inc’s permission. 8. That at all times material and relevant hereto, Defendants Lamarc Bradford and Defendant Shergill Transit Inc, were subject to the Parts, Rules and Regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration located in Title 49 C.F.R. Transportation, Subtitle B, Chapter III, Subch. B. Parts 390-399, inclusive, referred to herein as the “FMCSR.” That said regulations have been adopted by Oklahoma in Okla. Admin. Code § 595:35-1-4. 9. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Lamarc Bradford and Defendant Shergill Transit Inc, Plaintiff has sustained bodily injuries; has incurred medical expenses; has suffered pain and suffering; and has incurred property damage all in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE- DEFENDANT LAMARC BRADFORD Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations of the previous paragraphs of this Petition as if each were fully set forth herein in their entirety: 10. That at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lamarc Bradford, operated his vehicle in a negligent manner, including but not limited to one or more of the following respects: (a) by traveling at excessive speed; (b) by failing to maintain control of his vehicle; (c) by driving in a careless and prohibited manner; (d) by driving at a speed that was greater than was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances; (e) by failing to keep a careful lookout; (f) by following too closely; (g) by failing to perform mandatory pre-trip inspections before a journey; (h) failing to maintain his commercial motor vehicle. 11. That upon information and belief, Defendant Lamarc Bradford acted with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others, warranting the imposition of punitive damages. 12. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Lamarc Bradford, Plaintiff has sustained bodily injuries; has incurred medical expenses; has suffered pain and suffering; and has incurred property damage all in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lamarc Bradford’s acts and/or omissions were grossly negligent and in reckless disregard for the rights of others. The acts or omissions of Defendant Lamarc Bradford warrant the imposition of punitive damages in amount in excess of $75,000.00. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VICARIOUS LIABILITY – DEFENDANT SHERGILL TRANSIT INC That Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations of the previous paragraphs of this Petition as if each were fully set forth herein in their entirety. 14. At all times material hereto, Defendant Lamarc Bradford, was the employee, statutory employee, agent and/or servant of Defendant Shergill Transit Inc. 15. All actions of Defendant Lamarc Bradford, specified herein occurred within the course and scope of such employment, statutory employment or agency with Defendant Shergill Transit Inc. 16. That under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant Shergill Transit Inc is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of Defendant Lamarc Bradford. 17. Defendant Shergill Transit Inc is liable for the punitive damages of their employee Defendant Lamarc Bradford under respondeat superior. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT SHERGILL TRANSIT INC That Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations of the previous paragraphs of this Petition as if each were fully set forth herein in their entirety. 18. At all times material hereto, Defendant Lamarc Bradford, was the employee, statutory employee, agent and/or servant of Defendant Shergill Transit Inc. 19. That at all material times mentioned herein, Defendant Lamarc Bradford, was operating a commercial motor vehicle owned by Defendant Shergill Transit Inc. 20. Defendant Shergill Transit Inc. negligently maintained the commercial motor vehicle being operated by Defendant Bradford. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shergill Transit Inc failed to properly train Defendant Lamarc Bradford in the safe use of their vehicles, causing and contributing to Plaintiff's injuries and damages. 22. Defendant Shergill Transit Inc negligently entrusted Defendant Lamarc Bradford to drive a commercial motor vehicle under their operating authority, and knew or should have known that Defendant Lamarc Bradford was incompetent to drive the commercial motor vehicle. 23. Defendant Shergill Transit Inc knew or should have known that driver Lamarc Bradford was careless, reckless, unqualified and incompetent to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle, was likely to use the vehicle in a manner involving unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others. 24. As a motor carrier, Defendant Lamarc Bradford had certain duties and responsibilities as defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, State trucking safety regulations and trucking industry standards, including the duty to properly qualify Defendant Lamarc Bradford, the duty to properly train Defendant Lamarc Bradford, the duty to properly supervise Defendant Lamarc Bradford, the duty to monitor the hours of service of Defendant Lamarc Bradford, the duty to properly inspect and maintain its vehicles, and the duty to otherwise establish and implement appropriate management controls and systems for the safe operation of its commercial motor vehicles. 25. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shergill Transit Inc negligently failed to properly qualify Defendant Lamarc Bradford before allowing him to operating a commercial motor vehicle under their operating authority, failed to properly supervise him thereafter, and failed to discharge him from Trucking Company Shergill thereafter. 26. Defendant Shergill Transit Inc ‘s failure to properly hire, supervise, and train Defendant Lamarc Bradford was negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, and caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages described herein. 27. Defendant Shergill Transit Inc was independently negligent in entrusting Lamarc Bradford in connection with allowing him to operate a commercial motor vehicle under their operating authority, and in otherwise failing to act as a reasonable and prudent trucking company would under the same or similar circumstances. 28. If Defendant Shergill Transit Inc had performed a proper required background check into the prior driving history of Lamarc Bradford and performed a federally or state required mandate to monitor and investigate Lamarc Bradford’s driving conduct throughout his employment or agency with Defendant Lamarc Bradford, then Defendant Shergill Transit Inc would discovered that Lamarc Bradford was careless, reckless, unqualified and incompetent to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle such as the one supplied by Defendant Shergill Transit Inc, and Lamarc Bradford was likely to use the vehicle in a manner involving unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others. 29. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Shergill Transit Inc, Plaintiff has sustained bodily injuries; has incurred medical expenses; has suffered pain and suffering; and has incurred property damage all in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. 30. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shergill Transit Inc’s acts and/or omissions were grossly negligent and in reckless disregard for the rights of others. The acts or omissions of Defendant Shergill Transit Inc warrant the imposition of punitive damages in amount in excess of $75,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Thomas Dunlap prays for judgment against Defendants Lamarc Bradford and Shergill Transit Inc, for personal injuries and property damage all in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney fees, and punitive damages in excess of $75,000 and all such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, [signature] Monty L. Cain, OBA #15891 Anthony M. Alfonso, OBA #32722 P.O. Box 892098 Oklahoma City, OK 73189 (405) 759-7400 – Phone (405) 759-7424 – Facsimile [email protected] Cain Law Office P. O. Box 892098 Oklahoma City, OK 73189 Phone: (405) 759-7400 Fax: (405) 759-7424 E-mail: [email protected]; Attorneys for Plaintiff ATTORNEY’S LIEN CLAIMED