Sample Truck Accident Complaint

This sample truck accident complaint is offered as a practical resource for lawyers and law students looking to understand the structure and components of a negligence lawsuit involving a commercial vehicle.

The complaint provides the framework for drafting a truck accident lawsuit, particularly those involving multiple defendants, such as employers, vehicle owners, and drivers. By including claims such as negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, and agency liability, this document offers valuable insights into how attorneys can hold various parties accountable in truck accident cases.

It is worth noting that we do not always sue the truck driver. Sometimes, it is better to have a claim against the trucking company because an individual defendant can be far more sympathetic than a trucking company.  But you decide these things on a case-by-case basis.

BERNICE GUO
– Plaintiff

v.

ADAM SANDLER
– Defendant

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY
CIVIL ACTION NO.:

SAMPLE TRUCK ACCIDENT COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, BERNICE GUO, by and through her attorneys, Miller & Zois, LLC, bring suit against the Defendants, OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Officemax”), PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO. LP (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Penske”) and ADAM SANDLER (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Sandler”), and in support thereofstates as follows:

FACTS

1. On or about, September 15, 2023, Plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle northbound on Spring Mills Road at or near the intersection of Schwing Road, in Carroll County, Maryland.
2. At the same time and place, Defendant Sandler was operating a commercial vehicle owned by Defendant Penske, southbound on Spring Mills Road at or near the intersection of Schwing Road, in Carroll County, Maryland.
3. Defendant Sandler was an employee of Defendant Officemax at the time of the truck accident.
4. At all times herein mentioned 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
5. Defendant Sandler failed to maintain control of his truck and crossed over the center lane into Plaintiff’s lane striking the front of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE (Defendant Sandler)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs No. 1 through No. 5 of this Complaint fully as if the allegations were set forth fully herein.

6. Defendant Sandler had a duty to act reasonably and use due care while driving. Defendant Sandler 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 the speed of his truck to avoid an accident, to maintain a proper distance between vehicles, to stay to the right hand side of the road, to maintain his vehicle within his lane and to pay full time and attention to the operation of his vehicle and to avoid a collision.
7. Defendant Sandler 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 the 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 of his truck to avoid an accident, failing to maintain a proper distance between vehicles, by failing to control the vehicle in order to avoid a collision, failing to maintain his vehicle in his travel land and collided with Plaintiff ‘s vehicle.
8. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of Defendant Sandler, Plaintiff suffers from permanent physical injuries, conscious mental anguish, pain and suffering in the past and in the future, past medical expenses and future medical expenses.
9. All of the above damages were directly and proximately caused by the aforementioned negligence of Defendant Sandler, and were incurred without contributory negligence or assumption of the risk on the part of Plaintiff, or an opportunity for Plaintiff to avoid the accident.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bernice Guo demands compensatory damages against Defendant Sandler in the amount of THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE (Defendants Officemax and/ or Penske)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs No. 1 through No. 9 of this Complaint fully as if the allegations were set forth fully herein

10. Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske had a duty to Plaintiff to act reasonably.
11. Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske breached that duty
12. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske, Plaintiff suffers from permanent physical injuries, conscious mental anguish, pain and suffering in the past and in the future, past medical expenses and future medical expenses.
13. All of the above damages were directly and proximately caused by the aforementioned negligence of Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske, and were incurred without contributory negligence or assumption of the risk on the part of Plaintiff, or an opportunity for Plaintiff, to avoid the accident.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bernice Guo demands compensatory damages against Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske in the amount of THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (Defendant Officemax)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs No. 1 through No. 13 of this Complaint fully as if the allegations were set forth fully herein.

14. The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Sandler in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Officemax knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others while driving a truck.
15. Defendant Officemax, as the employer of Defendant Sandler, had the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of this truck by Defendant Sandler.
16. Defendant Officemax knew, or had reason to know, that Defendant Sandler because of youth, inexperience, and/ or prior actions, was likely to drive his truck in a negligent and reckless manner.
17. As a direct result of Defendant Officemax negligently entrusting Defendant Sandler, who operated said vehicle owned by Defendant Penske 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 Bernice Guo demands judgment against Defendant Officemax in the amount of THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (Defendant Penske)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs No. 1 through No. 17 of this Complaint fully as if the allegations were set fort
h fully herein.

18. The injuries, harm, and damages were incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the vehicle by Defendant Sandler in a negligent and reckless manner, which because of youth, inexperience, and prior actions, Defendant Penske knew, or had reason to know, was likely and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
19. Defendant Penske, as the owner of the truck driven by Defendant Sandler, has the right to permit and the power to prohibit the use of said vehicle by Defendant Sandler.
20. Defendant Penske knew, or had reason to know, that Defendant Sandler because of youth, inexperience, and/ or prior actions, was likely to drive his truck in a negligent and reckless manner.
21. As a direct result of Defendant Penske negligently entrusting the vehicle to Defendant Sandler, 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 Bernice Guo demands judgment against Defendant Penske in the amount of THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00), plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION (Defendants Officemax and/ or Penske)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs No. 1 through No. 21 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

22. Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske 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 Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske owed such duty to Plaintiff and such duty was breached.
23. Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske knew, or should have known, that Defendant Sandler would be likely to operate a motor vehicle in a negligent and reckless manner.
24. Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske knew, or should have known, that Defendant Sandler was not competent or fit for the duties required of him as an employee. Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske breached their duty to use reasonable care to select and retain an employee that was competent and fit for the position.
25. As a result of Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske is negligence in hiring and retaining Defendant Sandler, Plaintiff was injured as alleged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bernice Guo demands judgment against Defendants Officemax and Penske, in the amount of THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) plus costs, pre judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VI – AGENCY (Defendants Officemax and/ or Penske)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs No. 1 through No. 25 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

26. The above-described acts of Defendant Sandler were committed while he was acting as an agent, servant, and or employee of Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske.
27. The above-described acts of Defendant Sandler were committed within the scope of his agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske.
28. As the principals for Defendant Sandler, Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske are responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Sandler within the scope of his agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bernice Guo demands judgment against Defendant Officemax and/ or Defendant Penske in the amount of THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VII – AGENCY (Defendant Officemax)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs No. 1 through No. 28 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

29. The above-described acts of Defendant Penske were committed while acting as an agent of Defendant Officemax.
30. The above-described acts of Defendant Penske were committed while in the scope of their agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant Officemax.
31. As the principal for Defendant Penske, Defendant Officemax is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Penske while in the scope of its agency, including the truck accident in this case that caused the Plaintiff’s injuries.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Bernice Guo demands judgment against Defendant Penske in the amount of THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00) plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

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

Respectfully submitted,
Miller & Zois, LLC

Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Laura G. Zois
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
410-779-4600
410-760-8922 – FAX

More Information for Personal Injury Lawyer

• • Sample Complaints
  • Overview of Truck Accident Cases in Maryland
  • Maryland Accident Lawyer Help Center
  • Lawsuits against Penske