bus accident lawsuit

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZFernando Fabela Chavez, Esq., (SBN: 86902) 1530 The Alameda #301San Jose, CA 95126(408) 971-3903 Telephone / (408) 971-3903 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA MORALESand PAMELA MORALES

FEDERICO C. SAYRE & ASSOCIATESFederico C. Sayre, Esq., (SBN: 067420) Mahadhi Corzano, Esq., (SBN: 254905) Adam Salamoff, Esq., (SBN: 193686) 333 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, California 92701(714) 550-9117 Telephone / (714) 716-8445 Facsimile

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

GUILLERMINA MORALES, an individual, PAMELA MORALES, an individual;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SCAPADAS MAGICAS, LLC, a California limited liability company, INTERBUS TOURS AND CHARTERS, a foreign business entity of unknown type, NORBERTO B. PEREZ, an individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive.

Defendants.

))))))))))))))

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

(1) NEGLIGENCE(2) NEGLIGENCE PER SE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA MORALES and PAMELA MORALES allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. This is an action for personal injury arising from a bus accident near Yucaipa, CA

on February 3, 2013. Plaintiffs, who are Mexican citizens and were present in the United States

as part of a vacation getaway, were riding a tour bus that had been arranged for them by Interbus 1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Tours and Charters as part of their vacation. Interbus Tours and Charters contracted with

Scapadas Magicas to provide transportation to Big Bear, CA. On the return portion of the trip,

the bus driver lost control of the bus. The bus careened out of control, stuck a Saturn sedan,

crossed the center divider of the roadway, began rolling over while ejecting passengers from the

cabin of the bus, and collided and with an oncoming truck before coming to rest in the middle of

the road. Due to the negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, the Plaintiffs suffered

physical injuries.

VENUE

2. Venue is proper because the place of injury and loss occurred near the city of

Yucaipa, California, which is within the County of San Bernardino.

PLAINTIFFS

3. Plaintiff GUILLERMINA MORALES (hereafter GUILLERMINA for ease of

differentiation) is a natural person who resides in and has Mexican nationality and domicile.

Plaintiff GUILLERMINA MORALES was a passenger on the bus that was involved in the

accident on February 3, 2013, as described in paragraph one. Plaintiff GUILLERMINA

MORALES is the mother of Plaintiff PAMELA MORALES and was riding the bus with her

daughter while on this vacation getaway.

4. Plaintiff PAMELA MORALES (hereafter PAMELA for ease of differentiation)

is a natural person who resides in and has Mexican nationality and domicile. Plaintiff PAMELA

MORALES was a passenger on the bus that was involved in the accident on February 3, 2013, as

described in paragraph one. Plaintiff PAMELA MORALES is the daughter of Plaintiff

GUILLERMINA MORALES and was riding the bus with her mother while on this vacation

getaway.

DEFENDANTS

5. Defendant SCAPADAS MAGICAS, LLC is a duly formed and existing

California limited liability company that provides transportation to passengers in no less than the

Southern California region and such transportation included the bus trip to Big Bear, CA on

February 3, 2013, as referenced in paragraph one of the complaint. Defendant SCAPADAS 2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MAGICA, LLC (hereafter SCAPADAS) has its principal place of business in the County of

San Diego located at 3200 Highland Ave., Ste. 313, National City, CA 91950.

6. Defendant INTERBUS TOURS AND CHARTERS is a foreign business entity of

unknown form, but is believed to be of Mexican nationality and domicile. Defendant

INTERBUS TOURS AND CHARTERS sold the Plaintiffs their getaway excursion vacation for

February 3, 2013 during which the bus accident referenced in paragraph one of the complaint

occurred on the return portion of the trip. Defendant INTERBUS TOURS AND CHARTERS

(hereafter INTERBUS) has its place of business at Boulevard Gustavo Salinas 10755 Local 18

Plaza Conquistador, Tijuana, Mexico.

7. NORBERTO B. PEREZ is a natural person who resides in San Ysidro, California.

NORBERTO B. PEREZ is an employee of Defendants SCAPADAS and/or INTERBUS and was

the bus driver of the bus involved in the accident occurring on February 3, 2013, as referenced in

paragraph one of the complaint. NORBERTO B. PEREZ (hereafter PEREZ), with respect to

the conduct herein complained of, was at all times acting within the course and scope of his

employment with Defendants SCAPADAS and/or INTERBUS.

8. DOES 1 through 50 are employees, agents, owners, joint venturers, managers,

directors, and/or officers of Defendants SCAPADAS and/or INTERBUS. Plaintiff is informed

and believes and, based thereon, alleges that one or more of DOES 1 through 50, or some of

them, are responsible for the harm suffered by GUILLERMINA and PAMELA. DOES 1

through 50, in engaging in the conduct herein complained of, were at all times acting within the

course and scope of their employment, agency, ownership, joint venture, management, or their

status as an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants SCAPADAS and/or INTERBUS.

The precise identities of DOES 1 through 50 are currently unknown to the Plaintiffs, but

substitutions of those DOES will be sought once their identities have been ascertained.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Defendant INTERBUS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, owed Plaintiffs

GUILLERMINA and PAMELA a duty of care to act as a responsible tour operator by providing

safe vacation getaways. Particularly, INTERBUS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, 3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

owed the Plaintiffs a duty to taking reasonable precautions to ensure that its customers would be

provided with safe transportation by, with respect to the transportation companies that it was

going to contract, inquiring of the business safety record, accident record, and record of moving

motor vehicle violations, compliance with laws and regulations regarding vehicle maintenance

and safety, and the existence of citations and fines by governmental agencies.

10. Further, INTERBUS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, owed the

Plaintiffs a duty to actually provide safe transportation by refraining from contracting with

companies that had a poor safety or accident record, an unreasonable amount of moving motor

vehicle violations, poor compliance with laws and regulations regarding vehicle maintenance and

safety, or excessive citations and fines by governmental agencies.

11. Defendant INTERBUS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, breached the

duties it owed to Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA and PAMELA by permitting its conduct to fall

below the required standard of care. Particularly, INTERBUS and DOES 1 through 50, or some

of them, did not take reasonable precautions to ensure that its customers would be provided with

safe transportation when, with respect to contracting with Defendant SCAPADAS to provide

transportation for its customers that included the Plaintiffs, it failed to inquire of SCAPADAS

safety record, accident record, and record of moving motor vehicle violations, SCAPADAS

compliance with laws and regulations regarding vehicle maintenance and safety, and the

existence of citations and fines issued to SCAPADAS by governmental agencies.

12. Further, Defendant INTERBUS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them,

breached the duties it owed to Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA and PAMELA by failing to actually

provide safe transportation when it contracted with SCAPADAS who, on information obtained

from newspaper articles, Plaintiffs believe to have a poor safety or accident record, an

unreasonable amount of moving motor vehicle violations, poor compliance with laws and

regulations regarding vehicle maintenance and safety, and/or excessive citations and fines issued

to SCAPADAS by governmental agencies.

13. Defendant INTERBUS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, was the factual

and proximate cause of the harm and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. Particularly, 4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTERBUS failure to take reasonable precautions to ensure the Plaintiffs would be provided

with safe transportation, and additional failure to actually provide the Plaintiffs with safe

transportation, was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs harm and damages.

14. Plaintiffs suffered harm and damages from the conduct of Defendant INTERBUS

and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them. Particularly, Plaintiff GUILLERMINA MORALES

suffered harm and damages including, but not limited to, a fractured leg, pelvis, and arm, pain &

suffering, medical expenses, ect. Plaintiff PAMELA MORALES suffered harm and damages

including, but not limited to, a fractured arm, pain & suffering, medical expenses, ect.

15. Defendant SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, owed

Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA and PAMELA a duty of care to act as a responsible transportation

service provider. Particularly, SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, owed the

Plaintiffs a duty to take reasonable precautions to ensure that its customers would be provided

with safe transportation by:

A. Properly maintaining the busses and vehicles comprising its transportation

fleet,

B. Ensuring it employed competent and qualified drivers to operate its vehicles,

C. Complying with various laws (including, without limitation, Veh. Code

22350) and regulations issued by the Department of Transportation and other

regulatory agencies governing the maintenance and safety of vehicles subject

to said agencies regulatory oversight,

D. Maintaining proper business records related to the safety of the bus and other

vehicles in which its passengers, including the Plaintiffs, would be

transported,

E. Implementing adequate safety standards and policies to maintain a safety

record free from unnecessary accidents and moving motor vehicle violations,

F. Implementing adequate safety standards and policies to maintain compliance

with laws and regulations regarding vehicle maintenance and safety, and

G. Implementing adequate safety standards and policies to handle and rectify the 5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

problems for which a governmental agency had issued citations and/or fines to

SCAPADAS.

16. Defendant SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, breached the

duties it owed to Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA and PAMELA by permitting its conduct to fall

below the required standard of care. Particularly, SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or

some of them:

A. Failed to properly maintaining the busses and vehicles comprising its

transportation fleet,

B. Failed to employ competent and qualified drivers to operate its vehicles,

C. Violated various laws (including, without limitation, Veh. Code 22350) and

regulations issued by the Department of Transportation and other regulatory

agencies governing the maintenance and safety of vehicles subject to said

agencies regulatory oversight,

D. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that

SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, failed to maintain

proper business records related to the safety of the bus and other vehicles in

which its passengers, including the Plaintiffs, would be transported,

E. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that

SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, failed to implement

adequate safety standards and policies to maintain a safety record free from

unnecessary accidents and moving motor vehicle violations,

F. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that

SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, failed to implement

adequate safety standards and policies to maintain compliance with laws and

regulations regarding vehicle maintenance and safety, and

G. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that SCAPADAS

and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, failed to implement adequate safety

standards and policies to handle and rectify the problems for which a 6


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

governmental agency had issued citations and/or fines to SCAPADAS.

17. Defendant SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, was the

factual and proximate cause of the harm and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. Particularly,

SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, failed to properly maintaining the busses

and vehicles comprising its transportation fleet, failed to employ competent and qualified drivers

to operate its vehicles, violated various laws and regulations governing vehicle maintenance and

safety, failed to maintain proper business records, and failed to implement adequate safety

standards and policies, which was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs harm and

damages.

18. Plaintiffs suffered harm and damages from the conduct of Defendant SCAPADAS

SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them. Particularly, Plaintiff GUILLERMINA

MORALES suffered harm and damages including, but not limited to, a fractured leg, pelvis, and

arm, pain & suffering, medical expenses, ect. Plaintiff PAMELA MORALES suffered harm and

damages including, but not limited to, a fractured arm, pain & suffering, medical expenses, ect.

19. Defendant PEREZ owed Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA and PAMELA a duty of care

to act as a responsible bus driver. Particularly, PEREZ owed the Plaintiffs a duty to operate the

bus in a safe manner that was consistent with vehicle laws, to maintain control of the vehicle, and

to stop the vehicle and obtain assistance once it became obvious that the vehicle was

experiencing mechanical difficulties.

20. Defendant PEREZ breached his duties owed to Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA and

PAMELA by permitting its conduct to fall below the required standard of care. Particularly,

plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that PEREZ did not operate the bus

in a safe manner that was consistent with vehicle laws, maintain control of the vehicle, and did

not stop the vehicle and obtain assistance once it became obvious that the vehicle was

experiencing mechanical difficulties.

21. Defendant PEREZ was the factual and proximate cause of the harm and damages

suffered by the Plaintiffs. Particularly, PEREZ failure to operate the bus in a safe manner that

was consistent with vehicle laws, maintain control of the vehicle, and to stop the vehicle and 7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

obtain assistance once it became obvious that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical

difficulties was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs harm and damages.

22. Plaintiffs suffered harm and damages from the conduct of Defendant PEREZ.

Particularly, Plaintiff GUILLERMINA MORALES suffered harm and damages including, but

not limited to, a fractured leg, pelvis, and arm, pain & suffering, medical expenses, ect. Plaintiff

PAMELA MORALES suffered harm and damages including, but not limited to, a fractured arm,

pain & suffering, medical expenses, ect.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE

(By All Plaintiffs against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 50)

23. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate herein by reference, as though fully set forth

herein, Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint.

24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that the Defendants,

and each of them, owed the Plaintiffs the duties of care, as set forth above.

25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that the Defendants,

and each of them, breach their duties of care that were owed to the Plaintiffs, as set forth above.

26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based there on, allege that as a result of

each Defendants breach of their respective duties of care, Plaintiffs have suffered, without

limitation, physical, emotional, and financial harm, as set forth above.

27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that each

Defendants breach of their respective duties of care was a substantial factor, as set forth above,

in causing the Plaintiffs harm.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE PER SE

(By All Plaintiffs against All Defendant SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50)

28. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate herein by reference, as though fully set forth

herein, Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint.

29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that the Defendants, 8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and each of them, owed the Plaintiffs the duties of care, as set forth above.

30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that SCAPADAS

and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, were subject to laws and safety regulations pertaining

to vehicle safety and maintenance, as set forth above, and further that such laws and

regulations were intended to preserve life and prevent bodily injury to persons traveling on the

public U.S. roadways by ensuring the proper and timely upkeep and maintenance of vehicles

travelling on those public U.S. roadways.

31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that they are

members of a class (persons traveling on public U.S. roadways) for whose benefit those laws and

safety regulations were passed.

32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that SCAPADAS

and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, violated one or more laws and regulations and

breached their duties of care that were owed to the Plaintiffs, as set forth above.

33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that the Plaintiffs,

and each of them, suffered the same type of harm that the laws and regulations were intended to

prevent resulting in, without limitation, physical, emotional, and financial harm, as set forth

above, from the conduct of SCAPADAS and DOES 1 through 50, or some of them, which was a

substantial factor in causing that harm.

////

////

////

////

////9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

2. Damages for medical and related expenses according to proof;

3. Damages for loss of earnings according to proof;

4. Damages for loss of earning capacity according to proof;

5. For other and further general and special damages in a sum according to proof at

the time of trial;

6. Interest according to law;

7. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

8. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: February 20, 2013

1 FEDERICO C. SAYRE & ASSOCIATES

By: _______________________________ Federico C. Sayre, Esq.

Mahadhi Corzano, Esq. Adam Salamoff, Esq.

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury in the above-entitled action.

Dated: February 20, 2013

1 FEDERICO C. SAYRE & ASSOCIATES

By: _______________________________ Federico C. Sayre, Esq.

Mahadhi Corzano, Esq. Adam Salamoff, Esq.

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs10

bus accident lawsuit

Documents