CC-22-00652-E CAUSE NO.

ADRIANA BONNER AND QUENTIN IN THE COUNTY COURT BONNER, JR. Plaintiffs,

v. AT LAW

STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE

SOLUTIONS, INC., a.k.a. STERICYLE, INC. Defendant DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

Plaintiffs, ADRIANNA BONNER AND QUENTIN BONNER, JR., file this original

petition against Defendant STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., a.k.a.

STERICYLE, INC. and allege as follows:

A. DISCOVERY-CONTROL PLAN

1. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 190.3, Plaintiffs requestthat

discovery be conducted in accordance with Discovery Control Plan-Level 2.

B. CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 47 T.R.C.P.

2. Plaintiffs sue for claim for relief:

a. This cause of action arises out of claim for negligence involving motor

vehicle;

b. Damages sought are Within the jurisdictionallimits of the court;

c. Plaintiffs seek monetary reliefover $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000.

d. demand for judgmentfor all the other relief to which the parties deem

themselves entitled.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE

FILED

2/8/2022 2:41 PM

JOHN F. WARREN

COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

Case 3:22-cv-00543-C Document 1-4 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 11

Ex. A-1
C. PARTIES AND SERVICE

3. Plaintiff, ADRIANA BONNER,

is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas.

4. Plaintiff, QUENTIN BONNER, JR.,is an individual residing in Dallas County,

Texas.

5. Defendant, STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., a.k.a.

STERICYLE, INC., foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware,

whose principal office is located at 2355 Waukegan Rd STE 300 Bannockburn, IL 60015-5501, may be served with process by serving its registered agent, CORPORATION SYSTEM,

located at 1999 Bryan St., STE 900, Dallas, TX 75201.

D. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction and venue over the parties and subject matter of these

claims because the amount in controversy is within the jurisdictionallimits of this Court, and the

events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Dallas County.

E7. On or about February 8, 2020, Plaintiffs were travelling westbound in the left lane

of IH20, west of IH-45.

large truck, driven by an employee or agent ofDefendant

STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., a.k.a. STERICYCLE, INC, veered

into Plaintiffs’ lane, colliding with Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and resulting in substantial injuries to

Plaintiffs, of which, Plaintiffs are still suffering to date. The driver then fled the scene.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-00543-C Document 1-4 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 12
F. CAUSES OF ACTION

1. NEGLIGENCE

8. Plaintiffs replead and reiterate each and every particular of this petition, paragraphs

A—E alleging further that the injuries which are made the basis of this lawsuit resulted from the

improper conduct ofDefendant by and through its employees or agents.

9. Plaintiffs further allege that (l) The defendant owed duty to the plaintiffs, (2)the

defendant breached that duty, (3)the defendant’s action caused the plaintiffs’ injuries, and (4)the

plaintiffs’ damages.

a. Negligent Activity

10. The negligent activity and/or as contemporaneous result of the activity itself, by

Defendant and/or that ofits employee(s), including but not limited to, hauling waste materials, and

then, doing so in negligent manner, as well as, other related activities and functions, constituted

negligence and such negligent conduct was proximate cause of the occurrence, injuries, and

damages

to Plaintiffs which is made the basis of this lawsuit.

11. Plaintiffs allege furthermore that on the occasion in question, Defendant, and one or more ofits employees, agents, and servants, whom were, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, acting

in the course and scope of their employment, were negligenttoward the plaintiffs which

proximately caused the injuries complained ofin at least the following respects:

In failing to keep proper lookout;

In failing to operate the vehicle in reasonable and prudent manner;

In failing to check his surroundings; Driver inattention/driving while distracted;

In failing to timely make application of his brakes;

In failing to swerve or otherwise maneuver his vehicle so as to avoid the

collision made the basis of this lawsuit. Failing to maintain single lane oftravel; Any additional actions revelated as discovery progresses

in this case.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE

g. h.

Case 3:22-cv-00543-C Document 1-4 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 13
12. Each of the foregoing negligent acts and/or omissions, inter alia, whether taken

singularly or, in any combination, was proximate cause ofPlaintiffs’ injuries and damages which

are described herein.

13. In addition, the thing speaksfor itself. The character of the injury is such that it

would not have occurred without negligence and the instrumentality that caused the injury was

under the sole management and control ofthe defendant when its activities were being performed.

2. NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND/0R RETENTION

14. Plaintiffs replead and reiterate each and every particular ofthis petition, paragraphs

A-E, alleging further that:

a. The employer owed the plaintiffs legal duty to hire, supervise, train, or retain

competent employees.

b. The employer breached that duty.

c. The breach proximately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

15. Defendant’s negligent actions and/or omissions included, among other things, hiring

incompetent and/or unqualified employees, and/or the failure of Defendant to properly train,

supervise, and/or, the retention of its employee(s). Said negligent hiring, training, supervision,

and/or retention, proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. Plaintiffs seek

compensation for Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages within the jurisdictional

limits of the Court.

3. GROSS NEGLIGENCE

16. At the time ofthe incident, the employee or agent ofSTERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., a.k.a. STERICYLE, INC. was operating the vehicle with reckless

PLAINTIFFs’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-00543-C Document 1-4 Filed 03/08/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 14
disregard of the rights of others and was the result of conscious indifference to the rights, welfare

and safety of other motorists, pedestrians and other persons. The gross negligence of Defendant

STERICYCLE SPECIALTY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., a.k.a. STERICYLE, INC. were

proximate cause of the damages suffered by Plaintiffs and therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to

recover punitive damages.

G. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

17. Plaintiffs replead and reiterate each and every particular ofthis petition, paragraphs A-E alleging further that:

a. The plaintiffs were injured as result of tort.

b. The tortfeasor was an employee of the defendant.

c. The tort was committed by the employee while acting within the scope of employment—

that is, the act was:

(1) Within the employee’s general authority;

(2)

in furtherance of the defendant’s business; and

(3) for the accomplishment ofthe object

for which the employee was hired.

17. Specifically,inter alia, at all times pertinentto the occasion in question, the truck

driver was an employee and/or agent of Defendant and was acting within the course and scope of

his employment with Defendant, in furtherance of Defendant’s business, and for the

accomplishment of the object

for which the employee was hired.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-00543-C Document 1-4 Filed 03/08/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 15
18. On the occasion in question, the employee, while performing his activities on behalf

of the Defendant, was negligent and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ bodily injuries and other

damages. Defendant is vicariously liable for its employee’s negligence on the occasion in question

through the doctrine ofrespondeat superior. As result ofthe defendant’s employee’s negligence,

Plaintiffs were injured, for which Plaintiffs seek compensation. H. DAMAGES

19. Defendant’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs, which resulted

in the following damages:

Physical pain and suffering in the past and future. Mental anguish in the past and future. Disfigurement

in the past and fiJture. Physical impairment

in the past and future. e. Medical expenses

in the past and future.

f. Lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity

in the past and future. Loss of enjoyment of life; and Pre-judgment

interest and post-judgmentinterest. TEXAS FINANCE ODE §304.001, et seq., and any other applicable law.

I. T.R.C.P. 193.7 NOTICE 0F SELF AUTHENTICATION

20. Plaintiffs hereby give notice, pursuantto Tex.R.CiV.P. 193.7, of Plaintiffs’ intent

to utilize againstthe party producing same any document produced in response to written

discovery served by these Plaintiffs, and any documents exchanged provided between the parties

(including but not limited to, correspondence, pleadings, records, and discovery responses) during

the trial of this matter.

J. MISNOMER. ALTER-EGO. ASSUMED NAME

21. In the event any parties are misnamed or not included herein, it is Plaintiffs’

contention that such was “misnomer” and/or such parties are/were “alter egos” of parties named

herein. Plaintiffs rely upon Vemon’s Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated, Art 6133, et seq.,

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-00543-C Document 1-4 Filed 03/08/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 16
and Rule 28 ofthe TEXAS RULES 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE in order to property identify the Defendant

herein.

K. DESIGNATED E-SERVICE EMAIL ADDRESS

22. The following is the undersigned attorney’s designated e-Service email address

for all e- served documents and notices, filed and unfiled, pursuantto Tex. R. CiV. P. 21(f)(2)

21a: E-Service@KTCLAWFIRM.com. This is the undersigned’s only e-Service email address,

and service through any other email address will be considered invalid.

L23. For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue citation for Defendant to

appear and answer, and that Plaintiffs be awarded judgment against Defendant for the

following:

a. Actual damages; b. Exemplary damages; c. Prejudgment and post judgment interest; d. Court costs; and

e. All other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

The Law Offices of Kelly T. Curran

BY: WWW

Ricky Kemph

State Bar No. 24077645 Midtown Office Center 5720 LBJ Fwy., Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75240 Phone (469) 730-3007

Fax (469) 458-2993

ktclawfirm@gmail.com E-Service address ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-00543-C Document 1-4 Filed 03/08/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 17