4. Plaintiff, Valerie Battle-Dugger, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant

Transcription

1

2 3. Plaintiff, Creighton Mims, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant herein in Chicago, Illinois. 4. Plaintiff, Valerie Battle-Dugger, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant herein in Chicago, Illinois. 5. Plaintiff, Lennell Sorrels, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant herein in Chicago, Illinois. 6. Defendant, Megabus USA, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 400 South Racine Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, Megabus USA, LLC conducts systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois. 7. Defendant, Megabus Southeast, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 705 Lively Avenue, Norcross, Georgia, Megabus Southeast, LLC conducts systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois. 8. Defendant, Coach Leasing, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with a registered agent located at 208 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, Coach Leasing, Inc. conducts systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois. 9. Defendant, Coach USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 160 South State Route 17, Paramus, New Jersey Coach USA, Inc. conducts systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois. 10. Based on information and belief, Defendants Coach Leasing, Inc., Megabus USA, LLC, and Megabus Southeast LLC, are subsidiaries of Defendant Coach USA, Inc. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. The Circuit Court of Cook County has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to Article 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. 12. The Circuit Court of Cook County has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs, as 2

3 they have entered a general appearance in this matter and voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. 13. The Circuit Court of Cook County has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(1), because Defendants conduct business transactions in the State of Illinois. 14. Venue is proper, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101, as this is the county where Defendant Megabus USA, LLC resides. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 15. On or about October 13, 2014, Defendants owned, managed, maintained, leased and/or operated a certain passenger bus travelling from Atlanta, Georgia, to Chicago, Illinois (the Bus ). 16. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were a common carrier for hire, in operation of passenger busses, including the Bus travelling from Atlanta to Chicago. 17. At all times relevant hereto, there were numerous other authorized agents and/or employees of Defendants, charged with the responsibility of inspecting, maintaining and assuring that its passenger buses, including the subject Bus, were in a reasonably safe and road-ready condition. 18. On or about October 13 and 14, 2014, Plaintiffs were travelling home to Chicago from Atlanta on Defendants Bus. 19. Plaintiffs were picked up by Defendants Bus in Atlanta as part of a charter service to Chicago. 20. During the early morning of October 14, 2014, the Defendants, by and through their employee and/or agent, operated, managed, maintained and controlled the Bus in a northbound direction on Interstate 65 near Indianapolis, Indiana. 3

4 21. The Defendants Bus had between 50 and 60 passengers at this time. Plaintiffs were fare-paying passengers on the Bus. 22. It was raining during the ride to Chicago, and the Bus driver announced that there was a malfunction with the windshield wipers. 23. At approximately 4:30 a.m., the driver of Defendants Bus lost control of the vehicle causing it to rollover and come to rest on its side. 24. At least 20 to 30 passengers were injured, including all of the Plaintiffs. 25. As a result of the crash, the Plaintiffs suffered severe personal injuries, financial injuries, and subsequent medical expenses. COUNT I (Negligence against all Defendants) 26. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 25 above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 27. At all relevant times complained of herein, Defendants had a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing and operating their Bus service, a duty avoid placing others in danger, and a duty to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid an accident. In this case, Defendants duty to exercise ordinary care amounts to the highest degree of care because Defendants are common carriers. 28. In breach of said aforementioned duties, Defendants acted or failed to act in one or more of the following ways: a. Failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting a driver to safely and properly operate Defendants Bus; b. Failed to implement an adequate program or policy to properly instruct and train bus drivers to ensure they can safely and properly operate Defendants Bus; 4

5 c. Failed to create and adopt policies and procedures to avoid rollover accidents, such as the one involved here; d. Failed to properly inspect, maintain, and/or repair the Bus in order to ensure the Defendants Bus could be safely and properly operated; e. Failed to otherwise exercise reasonable care in transporting passengers along Defendants Bus route. 29. Said aforementioned actions or failures to act directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer (a) physical injuries and the pain and suffering and emotional distress associated therewith, (b) financial damage, (c) medical bills, and (d) other miscellaneous incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment for them and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in a fair and reasonable sum in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), plus costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem to be just and proper. COUNT II (Respondeat Superior against all Defendants) 30. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 25 above with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 31. At all relevant times complained of herein, the driver of Defendants Bus had a duty to exercise ordinary care in driving and operating the Bus, a duty avoid placing others in danger, and a duty to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid an accident. In this case, Defendants duty to exercise ordinary care amounts to the highest degree of care because Defendants are common carriers. 32. In breach of said aforementioned duties, the driver of Defendants Bus acted or failed to act in one or more of the following ways: a. Failed to exercise reasonable care operating the Bus; 5

6 b. Failed to exercise due care in controlling the Bus and to avoid a collision and rollover of the Bus; c. Failed to travel at or below a safe speed in light of the conditions; d. Failed to properly watch for and avoid traffic and/or other obstructions on the roadway; e. Failed to otherwise exercise reasonable care in transporting passengers on the Bus. 33. Based on information and belief, the driver of Defendants Bus was Defendants employee who was acting within the course and scope of the driver s employment when the driver acted or failed to act as described above. 34. Defendants are vicariously liable, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for their employee s acts that are performed within the course and scope of employment. 35. Defendants are vicariously liable to Plaintiffs, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the acts or omissions of their Bus driver, when the driver acted or failed to act as described above. 36. Said aforementioned actions or failures to act directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer (a) physical injuries and the pain and suffering and emotional distress associated therewith, (b) financial damage, (c) medical bills, and (d) other miscellaneous incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment for them and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in a fair and reasonable sum in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), plus costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem to be just and proper. 6

7

8