Sample Motorcycle Accident Complaint

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY

Civil Division

 

 

KOCH & SONS TRUCKING, INC.

Serve On:  Larry Koch
4200 Dahlberg Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota  55422,

And

KOCH LOGISTICS

  Serve On:  Larry Koch
4200 Dahlberg Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota  55422,

And

STAN KOCH & SONS TRUCKING, INC.

Serve On:  Larry Koch
4200 Dahlberg Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota  55422,

And

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.

Serve On:  The Corporation Trust Inc.
351 West Camden Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201,

And

BEST BUY CO., INC.

Serve On: CT Corporation System Inc.
100 S 5^th Street, #1075
Minneapolis, Minnesota  55402

And

******************************************

Case No.:

GEEK SQUADServe On:  Resident Agent
590 Park Street, #6
St Paul, Minnesota  55103,And

 

KOCH TRUCKING, Inc.

Serve On:  Mark Koch
13310 Lake Place Road
Zimmerman, Minnesota  55103,

And
LEBARRON F. RILEY, JR.
912 Smith Lane
New Castle, Delaware  19720

Defendant.*******************

 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Steven Jones (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., John B. Bratt and Miller & Zois, LLC, brings suit against the Defendants, KOCH & SONS TRUCKING, INC. (hereinafter “Defendant Koch & Sons”), KOCH LOGISTICS (hereinafter “Defendant Koch Logistics”), STAN KOCH & SONS TRUCKING, INC. (hereinafter “Defendant Stan Koch”), BEST BUY STORES, L.P. (hereinafter “Defendant Best Buy Stores”), BEST BUY CO. INC. (hereinafter “Defendant Best Buy Co.”), GEEK SQUAD (hereinafter “Defendant Geek Squad”), KOCH TRUCKING (hereinafter “Defendant Koch”) and LEBARRON F. RILEY, JR. (hereinafter “Defendant Driver”),  and in support thereof states as follows:

FACTS

            1.         On or about June 12, 2011, the Plaintiff was lawfully traveling and operating his motorcycle northbound on Maryland Route 213, approaching its intersection with the oncoming ramp from southbound Centerville Road, in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.

2.         At the same time and place, Defendant Driver was operating a commercial vehicle owned by Defendant Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. southbound on Centreville Road, at or near its intersection with Maryland Route 213, in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.

3.         With information provided to Plaintiff’s counsel, the facts indicate that Defendant Driver was an employee of Defendant Koch & Sons, Inc. at the time of the said occurrence.

4.         The Defendant Driver was operating the vehicle with the permission of Defendant Koch & Sons, Inc.

5.         The Defendant Driver was operating the vehicle as the agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Koch & Sons, Inc.

6.         The Defendant Driver failed to obey the blinking red signal and failed to yield to Plaintiff’s right-of-way, causing Plaintiff to take evasive action and be ejected from his motorcycle.

7.         At all times herein mentioned the Plaintiff’s vehicle was operated in a reasonable and prudent manner, with due caution and regard for the motor vehicle laws of the State of Maryland.

8.         The Defendant Driver failed to yield to the Plaintiff’s right-of-way, failed to control his vehicle, failed to obey traffic control devices, and causing Plaintiff to take evasive action and be ejected from his motorcycle.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE
(Defendant Riley)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 8 as if set forth fully herein.

9.         The Defendant Driver had a duty to act reasonably and to use due care while driving.  The Defendant Driver had a duty to pay attention to traffic, to maintain a proper lookout, to obey traffic control devices, to obey the laws and rules of the State of Maryland, to maintain proper speed for the conditions, to reduce speed to avoid an accident, to maintain a proper distance between vehicles and to control his vehicle to avoid a collision.

10.       The Defendant Driver breached that duty of due care by failing to pay proper attention to the roadway and the traffic, failing to maintain a proper lookout, failing to obey a traffic control device, failing to obey the laws and rules of the State of Maryland, failing to maintain proper speed for the conditions, failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident, failing to maintain a proper distance between vehicles and failing to control his vehicle in order to avoid a collision.

11.       As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Driver, the Plaintiff suffered physical injuries and mental anguish.  The Plaintiff has past medical expenses, past lost wages and past pain and suffering.  The Plaintiff may have future medical expenses and future lost wages.  The Plaintiff’s injuries from the accident with the Defendant Driver are permanent.  Finally, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of use, loss of personal property and has incurred rental car expenses and towing expenses.

12.       All of the above damages were directly and proximately caused by the aforementioned negligence of the Defendant Driver, and were incurred without contributory negligence or assumption of the risk on the part of the Plaintiff, or an opportunity for the Plaintiff to avoid the accident.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as this Honorable Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II – AGENCY

(Defendant Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc.)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 as if set forth fully herein.

13.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while acting

as an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Koch & Sons.

14.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Koch & Sons.

15.       As the principal for Defendant Riley, Defendant Koch & Sons is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Riley while in the scope of their agency.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch & Sons, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

(Defendant Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 as if set forth fully herein.

16.       The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Koch & Sons knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

17.       Defendant Koch & Sons, as the owner of the vehicle being driven by Defendant Riley, had the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley.

18.       Defendant Koch & Sons knew or had reason to know that Defendant Riley because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, was likely to drive in a negligent and reckless manner.

19.       As a direct result of Defendant Koch & Sons negligently entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Riley, who operated said vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner, the Plaintiff, without any contributory negligence, did suffer the injuries, damages, and harm previously enumerated in Count I of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch & Sons, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Defendant Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as if set forth fully herein.

20.       Defendant Koch & Sons had a duty to use reasonable care to select an employee who was competent and fit to perform the duties required as an employee.  Defendant Koch & Sons owed such a duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.

21.       Defendant Koch & Sons knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.

22.       Defendant Koch & Sons knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee.  Defendant Koch & Sons breached its duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.

23.       As a result of Defendant Koch & Sons’s negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Riley, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendant Koch & Sons, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V – AGENCY

(Defendant Koch Logistics)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 23 as if set forth fully herein.

24.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while acting

as an agent, servant, or employee of Koch Logistics.

25.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Koch Logistics.

26.       As the principal for Defendant Riley, Defendant Koch Logistics is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Riley while in the scope of their agency.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch Logistics, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VI – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

(Defendant Koch Logistics)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26 as if set forth fully herein.

27.       The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Koch Logistics knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

28.       Defendant Koch Logistics, as the owner of the vehicle being driven by Defendant Riley, had the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley.

29.       Defendant Koch Logistics knew or had reason to know that Defendant Riley because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, was likely to drive in a negligent and reckless manner.

30.       As a direct result of Defendant Koch Logistics negligently entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Riley, who operated said vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner, the Plaintiff, without any contributory negligence, did suffer the injuries, damages, and harm previously enumerated in Count I of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch Logistics, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VII – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Defendant Koch Logistics)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 as if set forth fully herein.

31.       Defendant Koch Logistics had a duty to use reasonable care to select an employee who was competent and fit to perform the duties required as an employee.  Defendant Koch & Sons owed such a duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.

32.       Defendant Koch Logistics knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.

33.       Defendant Koch Logistics knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee.  Defendant Koch Logistics breached its duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.

34.       As a result of Defendant Koch Logistics’ negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Riley, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch Logistics, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VIII – AGENCY

(Defendant Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc.)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 as if set forth fully herein.

35.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while acting

as an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Stan Koch.

36.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Stan Koch.

37.       As the principal for Defendant Riley, Defendant Stan Koch is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Riley while in the scope of their agency.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Stan Koch, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IX – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

(Defendant Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 37 as if set forth fully herein.

38.       The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Stan Koch knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

39.       Defendant Stan Koch, as the owner of the vehicle being driven by Defendant Riley, has the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use the vehicle by Defendant Riley.

40.       Defendant Stan Koch knew or had reason to know that Defendant Riley because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, was likely to drive in a negligent and reckless manner.

41.       As a direct result of Defendant Stan Koch negligently entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Riley, who operated said vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner, the Plaintiff, without any contributory negligence, did suffer the injuries, damages, and harm previously enumerated in Count I of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Stan Koch, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT X – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Defendant Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 as if set forth fully herein.

42.       Defendant Stan Koch had a duty to use reasonable care to select an employee who was competent and fit to perform the duties required as an employee.  Defendant Stan Koch owed such a duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.

43.       Defendant Stan Koch knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.

44.       Defendant Stan Koch knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee.  Defendant Stan Koch breached its duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.

45.       As a result of Defendant Stan Koch’s negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Riley, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Stan Koch, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XI – AGENCY

(Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P.)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 45 as if set forth fully herein.

46.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while acting

as an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Best Buy Stores.

47.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Best Buy Stores.

48.       As the principal for Defendant Riley, Defendant Best Buy Stores is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Riley while in the scope of their agency.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Best Buy Stores, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XII – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

(Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 48 as if set forth fully herein.

49.       The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Best Buy Stores knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

50.       Defendant Best Buy Stores, as the owner of the vehicle being driven by Defendant Riley, had the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley.

51.       Defendant Best Buy Stores knew or had reason to know that Defendant Riley because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, was likely to drive in a negligent and reckless manner.

52.       As a direct result of Defendant Best Buy Stores negligently entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Riley, who operated said vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner, the Plaintiff, without any contributory negligence, did suffer the injuries, damages, and harm previously enumerated in Count I of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Best Buy Stores, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XIII – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 52 as if set forth fully herein.

53.       Defendant Best Buy Stores had a duty to use reasonable care to select an employee who was competent and fit to perform the duties required as an employee.  Defendant Best Buy Stores owed such a duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.

54.       Defendant Best Buy Stores knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.

55.       Defendant Best Buy Stores knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee.  Defendant Best Buy Stores breached its duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.

56.       As a result of Defendant Best Buy Stores’ negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Riley, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendant Best Buy Stores, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XIV – AGENCY

(Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc.)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 56 as if set forth fully herein.

57.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while acting

as an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Best Buy Co.

58.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Best Buy Co.

59.       As the principal for Defendant Riley, Defendant Best Buy Co. is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Riley while in the scope of their agency.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Best Buy Co., jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XV – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

(Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 59 as if set forth fully herein.

60.       The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Best Buy Co. knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

61.       Defendant Best Buy Co., as the owner of the vehicle being driven by Defendant Riley, had the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley.

62.       Defendant Best Buy Co. knew or had reason to know that Defendant Riley because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, was likely to drive in a negligent and reckless manner.

63.       As a direct result of Defendant Best Buy Co. negligently entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Riley, who operated said vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner, the Plaintiff, without any contributory negligence, did suffer the injuries, damages, and harm previously enumerated in Count I of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Best Buy Co., jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XVI – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc.)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 63 as if set forth fully herein.

64.       Defendant Best Buy Co. had a duty to use reasonable care to select an employee who was competent and fit to perform the duties required as an employee.  Defendant Best Buy Co. owed such a duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.

65.       Defendant Best Buy Co. knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.

66.       Defendant Best Buy Co. knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee.  Defendant Best Buy Co. breached its duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.  This caused this motorcycle accident.

67.       As a result of Defendant Best Buy Co.’s negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Riley, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendant Best Buy Co., in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XVII – AGENCY

(Defendant Geek Squad)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 67 as if set forth fully herein.

68.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while acting as an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Geek Squad.

69.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Geek Squad.

70.       As the principal for Defendant Riley, Defendant Geek Squad is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Riley while in the scope of their agency.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Geek Squad, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XVIII – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

(Defendant Geek Squad)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 70 as if set forth fully herein.

71.       The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Geek Squad knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

72.       Defendant Geek Squad, as the owner of the vehicle being driven by Defendant Riley, had the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley.

73.       Defendant Geek Squad knew or had reason to know that Defendant Riley because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, was likely to drive in a negligent and reckless manner.

74.       As a direct result of Defendant Geek Squad negligently entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Riley, who operated said vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner, the Plaintiff, without any contributory negligence, did suffer the injuries, damages, and harm previously enumerated in Count I of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Geek Squad, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XIX – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Defendant Geek Squad)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 74 as if set forth fully herein.

75.       Defendant Geek Squad had a duty to use reasonable care to select an employee who was competent and fit to perform the duties required as an employee.  Defendant Geek Squad owed such a duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.

76.       Defendant Geek Squad knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.

77.       Defendant Geek Squad knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee.  Defendant Geek Squad breached its duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.

78.       As a result of Defendant Geek Squad’s negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Riley, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Geek Squad, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XX – AGENCY

(Defendant Koch Trucking)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 78 as if set forth fully herein.

79.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while acting

as an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Koch.

80.       The above-described acts of Defendant Riley were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Koch.

81.       As the principal for Defendant Riley, Defendant Koch is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Riley while in the scope of their agency.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XXI – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT
                                                            (Defendant Koch Trucking)

 

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 81 as if set forth fully herein.

82.       The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Koch knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

83.       Defendant Koch, as the owner of the vehicle being driven by Defendant Riley, had the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of the vehicle by Defendant Riley.

84.       Defendant Koch knew or had reason to know that Defendant Riley because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, was likely to drive in a negligent and reckless manner.

85.       As a direct result of Defendant Koch negligently entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Riley, who operated said vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner, the Plaintiff, without any contributory negligence, did suffer the injuries, damages, and harm previously enumerated in Count I of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch, jointly and severally, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT XXII – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Defendant Koch Trucking)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 85 as if set forth fully herein.

86.       Defendant Koch had a duty to use reasonable care to select an employee who was competent and fit to perform the duties required as an employee.  Defendant Koch owed such a duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.

87.       Defendant Koch knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.

88.       Defendant Koch knew, or should have known, that Defendant Riley was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee.  Defendant Geek Squad breached its duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.

89.       As a result of Defendant Koch’s negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Riley, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Koch, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

MILLER & ZOIS, LLC

 

                                                                       

John B.Bratt
Empire Towers, Suite 1001
7310 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, Maryland   21061
(410)553-6000
(410)760-8922 (Fax)
Attorney for the Plaintiff

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-325, prays a trial by jury on all issues.

                                                                       
John B. Bratt

 

• Wrongful Death Motorcycle Accident Demand Letter
• Motorcycle Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence of the Type of Motorcycle
• Maryland Insurance Code regarding Personal Injury Protection (PIP) for Motorcycles
• Overview of Motorcycle Accident Cases