Amended Megabus Complaint

8/10/2019 Amended Megabus Complaint

1/9


2/9

2

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, Bridgette Humbert, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant

herein in Chicago, Illinois.

3. Plaintiff, Creighton Mims, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant


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


6. Plaintiff, Jonathan Kizer, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant


7. Plaintiff, Dhileepkumar Sathiakumar, is an adult individual, residing at all times

relevant herein in Prospect Heights, Illinois.

8. Plaintiff, Nathan Marshall, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant


9. Plaintiff, Devin Novgorodoff, is an adult individual, residing at all times relevant

herein in Louisville, Kentucky.

10. Defendant, Megabus USA, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 400 South Racine Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60609. Megabus

USA, LLC conducts systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois.

11. Defendant, Megabus Southeast, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business at 705 Lively Avenue, Norcross, Georgia, 30091. Megabus

Southeast, LLC conducts systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois.


3/9

3

12. Defendant, Coach Leasing, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with a registered agent

located at 208 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. Coach Leasing, Inc. conducts

systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois.

13. Defendant, Coach USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 160 South State Route 17, Paramus, New Jersey 07652. Coach USA, Inc. conducts

systematic and continuous business activity within the State of Illinois.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. The Circuit Court of Cook County has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs, as

they have entered a general appearance in this matter and voluntarily submitted themselves to the

jurisdiction of the Court.

17.

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.

18. Venue is proper, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101, as this is the county where

Defendant Megabus USA, LLC resides.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19. 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).


4/9

4

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. On or about October 13 and 14, 2014, Plaintiffs were travelling home to Chicago

on Defendants Busthat originated in Atlanta.

23.

Plaintiffs were picked up by Defendants Bus along the route as part of a charter

service to Chicago.

24.

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.

25. The Defendants Bus had between 50 and 60 passengers at this time. Plaintiffs

were fare-paying passengers on the Bus.

26. It was raining during the ride to Chicago, and the Bus driver announced that there

was a malfunction with the windshield wipers.

27. 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.

28. At least 20 to 30 passengers were injured, including all of the Plaintiffs.

29. As a result of the crash, the Plaintiffs suffered severe personal injuries, financial

injuries, and subsequent medical expenses.


5/9

5

COUNT I

(Negligence against all Defendants)

30. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 29 above with the same force

and effect as though fully set forth herein.

31. 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.

32.

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 andproperly operate Defendants Bus;

b. Failed to implement an adequate program or policy to properly instructand train bus drivers to ensure they can safely and properly operateDefendants Bus;

c.

Failed to create and adopt policies and procedures to avoid rolloveraccidents, such as the one involved here;

d. Failed to properly inspect, maintain, and/or repair the Bus in order toensure the Defendants Buscould be safely and properly operated;

e. Failed to take the Bus out of service when it needed repairs in order tosafely transport passengers;

f. Failed to otherwise exercise reasonable care in transporting passengers

along Defendants Bus route.

33. 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


6/9

6

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)

34. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 29 above with the same force

and effect as though fully set forth herein.

35. 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.

36. 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;

b. Failed to exercise due care in controlling the Bus and to avoid a collisionand 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 onthe roadway;

e.

Failed to take the Bus out of service when it needed repairs in order tosafely transport passengers;

f. Failed to otherwise exercise reasonable care in transporting passengers onthe Bus.


7/9

7

37. Based on information and belief, the driver of Defendants Bus was Defendants

employee who was acting within the course and scope of the drivers employment when the

driver acted or failed to act as described above.

38. Defendants are vicariously liable, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for

their employees acts or omissions that occur within the course and scope of the employees

employment.

39. Defendants are vicariously liable to Plaintiffs, under the doctrine of respondeat

superior, for the acts or failures to act of their Bus driver, when the driver acted or failed to act as

described above.

40. 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 in their favor 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.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.


8/9


9/9

Documents

Amended Megabus Complaint