FILED

6/21/2022 11:47 PM

JOHN F. WARREN

COUTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

CC-22-03246-D

CAUSE NO.

TIMOTHY NAPOLEON, II, AND IN THE COUNTY COURT

LA DERIKA L. JONES, Plaintiffs,

v. AT LAW NO. DANNY HERMAN TRUCKING, INC., AND RAMON E. CASIANO, Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COME TIMOTHY NAPOLEON, II and LA DERIKA L. JONES (hereafter

collectively “Plaintiffs”), complaining of DANNY HERMAN TRUCKING, INC. and RAMON

E. CASIANO (hereafter collectively “Defendants”), and files this Plaintiffs’ Original Petition

and Jury Demand, and in support thereof, would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL

l. Plaintiffs bring this action under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(c)(3) and seek

monetary relief over $250,000.00 but not more than $1,000,000. Plaintiffs intend that discovery

be conducted under Discovery Level 3.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, TIMOTHY NAPOLEON, II,is an individual residing in Dallas

County, Texas. Pursuant to §30.014 of the Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code, Plaintiff

states that the last three digits of his driver license are 257 and the last three digits of his social

security number are 167.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID 14
3. Plaintiff, LA DERIKA L. JONES,

is an individual residing in Dallas County,

Texas. Pursuant to §30.0l4 of the Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code, Plaintiff states that

the last three digits of her driver license are 717 and the last three digits of her social security

number are 964.

4. Defendant, DANNY HERMAN TRUCKING, INC.,is foreign for-profit

corporation doing business in the State of Texas, and may be served with process by serving its

registered agent: Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service

Company, 211 E. 7‘“ Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218, or wherever the agent may be found. Issuance of citation is requested at this time to include language that

“Defendants mav be required t0 make initial disclosures.”

5. Defendant, RAMON E. CASIANO,is an individual who is nonresident of

Texas, whose home address is 20728 W. Thomas Road, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona

85396-1568, and may be served with process by serving the Chairman of the Texas

Transportation Commission at 125 E. 11‘“ Street, Austin, Texas 78701, as Defendant’s agent

for service because Defendant was party to collision while operating motor vehicle in

Texas. Issuance of citation is requested at this time to include language that “Defendant mav be required to make initial disclosures.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictionallimits ofthis Court.

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties, because said Defendants purposefully

availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the State of Texas and established minimum contacts sufficient to confer jurisdiction over said Defendants, and the assumption of

jurisdiction over Defendants will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

PLAINTIFFs’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID 15
and is consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process.

8. Further, as required by Rule 47(b), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs’

counsel states that the damages, harms and losses sought are in an amount within the

jurisdictional

limits of this Court. Plaintiffs are required by Rule 47(0), Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure to state the amount of damages, in dollar amount, that represent Plaintiffs’ harms and

losses due to the negligence of the Defendants. The legislative history of this requirement

indicates that it is for record keeping and statistical purposes only for lawsuits filed in the State

of Texas. Plaintiffs’ counsel states that Plaintiffs seeks monetary relief, the maximum of which

harms, losses and damages

to Plaintiffs is over $1,000,000. The amount of monetary relief

actually assessed by the jury or judge, however, will ultimately be determined by jury or judge

after hearing all of the evidence of harms, damages and losses. Plaintiffs also seek pre-judgment

and post-judgmentinterest at the highest legal rate as well as exemplary damages.

9. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code 15.002, et seq., venue is

proper

in Dallas County, Texas because it is the county where all or substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred. MISNOMER/ALTER EGO

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

’9 ‘6 contention that such was “misidentification, misnomer,” and/or such parties are/were “alter

egos” of parties named herein. Alternatively, Plaintiffs contends that such “corporate veils”

should be pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest ofjustice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

ll. On or about June 18, 2020, Plaintiff TIMOTHY NAPOLEON, II was driving

2013 White Nissan Altima, while Plaintiff LA DERIKA JONES was riding as passenger.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID 16
Plaintiffs were traveling westbound on the IH-20 Frontage Road at the intersection with 7400

Bonnie View Road in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. Defendant RAMON E. CASIANO was

operating 2020 Blue Kenworth commercial vehicle, pulling 2015 Black Trailer, owned by

and while in the course and scope of employment with Defendant DANNY HERMAN

TRUCKING, INC. Defendant CASIANO was also traveling westbound on IH-20 Frontage Road

ahead of Plaintiffs when he came to stop at the red traffic light controlling the intersection.

Defendant CASIANO proceeded to make rightturn on red, to go northbound on Bonnie View

Road and as Defendant made his right turn, Plaintiff NAPOLEON stopped his vehicle at the red

traffic light. Defendant CASIANO’S negligence in his failure to keep proper lookout, failure to

control his vehicle, and cutting the turn too short, proximately caused the trailer of Defendant’s

l8-wheeler to strike and drag Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing said collision and damages suffered by

Plaintiffs.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

12. The employees, and/or actual, apparent, ostensible or estoppel agents and/or

representatives of Defendant DANNY HERMAN TRUCKING, INC., were acting in the course

and scope of their respective employment and were within Defendant’s general authority, in

furtherance of Defendant’s business, and for the accomplishment of the objectfor which

Defendant’s employees, agents, and/or representatives were hired. Defendant is therefore liable

under the theory of Respondeat Superior. Therefore, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for the

damages proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees, and/or actual,

apparent, ostensible or estoppel agents and/or representatives, specifically Defendant RAMON

E. CASIANO.

PLAINTIFFs’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID 17
NEGLIGENT I-IIRING/SUPERVISION/TRAINING/RETENTION

13. Defendant DANNY HERMAN TRUCKING, INC., had legal duty to exercise

the high degree of care to hire, supervise, train and/or retain competent employees. Defendant

breached the duty when Defendant negligently hired, supervised, trained, and/or retained

Defendant RAMON E. CASIANO that caused the collision with Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Defendant’s

breach of duty to hire, supervise, train, and/or retain competent employees proximately caused

injury to Plaintiffs which resulted in damages Plaintiffs are now complaining of.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE AGAINST DEFENDANT RAMON E. CASIANO

14. Defendant had duty to exercise the degree of care that reasonably careful person

would use to avoid harm to others under circumstances similar to those described herein.

15. Defendant’s negligent, careless and reckless disregard of said duty proximately

caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

16. The negligent, careless and reckless acts ofDefendant consisted of, but is not limited

to, the following acts and omissions:

a) In that Defendant failed to keep proper

lookout for Plaintiff safety that would have been maintained by person of ordinary prudence under the

same or similar circumstances;

b) In that Defendant operated the motor vehicle at rate of speed which was

greater

than that which would have been operated by person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances;

c) In that Defendant drove his vehicle recklessly on the occasion in question;

d) In that Defendant failed to apply the brakes to the motor vehicle in

timely and prudent matter proximately causing the collision in question;

e) In that Defendant failed to maintain proper control of his vehicle;

f)

In that Defendant failed to take proper and safe evasion action so as to avoid the collision in question;

PLAINTIFFs’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID 18
g) In that Defendant made wide right

turn when it was clearly unsafe to do

so; and,

h) In that Defendant failed to bring the motor vehicle to complete safe stop to avoid the collision in question.

l7. The above acts and/or omissions were singularly and/or severally proximate

cause ofthe occurrence in question and the resulting injuries and/or damagesto Plaintiff.

18. Further, Defendant failed to exercise the mandatory standard of care in violation

of V.T.C.A. Transportation Code pursuantto the doctrine of negligence per se, which mandates

that:

§545.351 MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT, which provides that,

“(a) An operator may not drive at speed greater

than is

reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.”

§545.401(a) RECKLESS DRIVING, which provides that, “A person commits an offense if the person drives vehicle in willful or wanton

disregard for the safety of persons or property.”

l9. These statutes are designed to protect class of personsto which Plaintiffs belong

against

the type of injury suffered by Plaintiffs.

20. Defendant’s violation of the Texas Transportation Code sections described above

was without legal excuse and Defendant’s breach of the duties imposed by these statutes

proximately caused injuries to Plaintiffs.

21. Defendant’s conduct described herein constitutes an unexcused breach of the duty

imposed on the occasion in question by the negligent and careless acts listed above, which are

proximate cause of the occurrence and the resulting injuries and damages

to Plaintiffs.

22. The above acts and/or omissions are singularly and/or severally proximate cause

of the occurrence in question and the resulting injuries and/or damagesto Plaintiffs.

PLAINTIFFs’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID 19
DAMAGES TINIOTHY NAPOLEON, II

23. As direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff was caused

to suffer serious bodily injury and damages, and to incur the following damages:

a. Medical care expenses sustained in the past;

b. Medical care expenses that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiffwill sustain

in the future;

c. Physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past;

d. Physical pain and mental anguish which,in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;

e. Physical impairment

in the past;

f. Physical impairment which,

in reasonable probability, will be suffered in

the future;

g. Loss of earnings

in the past;

h. Loss of earnings that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiffwill sustain in the

future;

i. Loss of earning capacity in the past; and

j. Loss of earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future.

24. Alternatively, if the evidence demonstrates that priorto the occurrence in question

that Plaintiff had pre-existing conditions, such conditions at the time of the occurrence were

latent, controlled and/or non-debilitating, and the occurrence has aggravated and accelerated

those conditions and/or made Plaintiff more vulnerable and re-disposed to subsequent injury and

to the effects of subsequent stressors and injuries.

25. As further direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this

lawsuit, Plaintiff was caused to suffer the following damages:

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID 20
A. Property damage and/or total loss to his 2013 White Nissan Altima

vehicle;

B. Depreciation of value to his 2013 White Nissan Altima vehicle; and

C. Loss of use of his 2013 White Nissan Altima vehicle, including but not

limited to, towing and rental expenses, and storage fees.

26. For the above reasons, Plaintiff has suffered losses and damagesin sum within

the jurisdictionallimits of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought. DAMAGES LA DERIKA L. JONES

27. As direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff was caused

to suffer serious bodily injury and damages, and to incur the following damages:

k. Medical care expenses sustained in the past;

l. Medical care expenses that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiffwill sustain

in the future; m. Physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past;

n. Physical pain and mental anguish which,in reasonable probability, will be suffered in the future;

o. Physical impairment

in the past;

p. Physical impairment which,

in reasonable probability, will be suffered in

the future;

q. Loss of earnings

in the past;

r. Loss of earnings that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiffwill sustain in the

future;

s. Loss of earning capacity in the past; and

t. Loss of earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future.

28. Alternatively, if the evidence demonstrates that priorto the occurrence in question

that Plaintiff had pre-existing conditions, such conditions at the time of the occurrence were

PLAINTIFFs’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID 21
latent, controlled and/or non-debilitating, and the occurrence has aggravated and accelerated

those conditions and/or made Plaintiff more vulnerable and re-disposed to subsequent injury and

to the effects of subsequent stressors and injuries.

29. For the above reasons, Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages

in sum within

the jurisdictionallimits of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought.

REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

30. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190 and 194, Defendants may be

required to make initial disclosures, due within 3O days after the first answer is filed, unless

otherwise agreed or changed by court order.

INTENT T0 USE DEFENDANTS’S DOCUMENTS

31. In accordance with the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, any documents

produced by Defendants in response to written discovery will be used by Plaintiffs at any pretrial proceeding or trial.

INTENT TO USE U.S. LIFE TABLES

32. Plaintiffs hereby notify the Defendants of their intent to use U.S. Life Tables as

published by the U.S. Government in the trial ofthis matter.

JURY DEMAND

33. Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all issues herein and tender the

appropriate jury fee with this original petition.

34. Plaintiffs have met all conditions precedentto the filing ofthis lawsuit. DESIGNATED ESERVICE EMAIL ADDRESS

35. The following is the undersigned attorney’s designation of electronic service

email address for all electronically served documents and notices, filed and unfiled, pursuantto

PLAINTIFFs’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE of

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID 22
Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(2) 21(a): eservice@kastllaw.com. This is the undersigned’s ONLY

electronic service email address, and service through any other email address will be considered

invalid.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs requests

that Defendants be

cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final trial and hearing, Plaintiffs have

judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages for monetary relief over

$250,000 but not more than $1,000,000, which is within the jurisdictional

limits of the Court;

together with pre—judgment

interest from the date of injury through the date ofjudgment at the maximum rate allowed by law; post-judgment

interest at the highest legal rate until the time the

judgment

is paid; costs of court; and such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be

justly entitled at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

KASTL LAW, P.C.

/s/Kristina N. Kastl Kristina N. Kastl State Bar No. 24025467 Email: eservice@kastllaw.com

Email: kkastl@kastllaw.com Marcos Soto

State Bar No. 24127678 Email: msoto@kastllaw.com

4144 North Central Expressway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75204 Phone: (214) 821-0230

Fax: (214) 821-0231

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

*Please note and document Kastl Law, P.C.’s new e- serve address. All future e-serve notifications must be

served at: eservice@kastllaw.com.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE 10 0f

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID 23
Service is only effectuated if it is served through our eservice@‘kastllaw.com email. Any other Kastl Law, P.C. email is considered ineffective service.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND PAGE II 0f

Case 3:22-cv-01896-M Document 1-5 Filed 08/26/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID 24