Trucking / Commercial Vehicle Accident Complaint

TRUCKING / COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — ARIZONA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. General Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence (Driver Defendant)
6. Count II — Vicarious Liability / Respondeat Superior (Carrier Defendant)
7. Count III — Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, Retention & Entrustment (Carrier Defendant)
8. Count IV — Negligent Maintenance
9. Count V — Negligence Per Se (FMCSR Violations)
10. Comparative Fault Statement
11. Damages
12. Spoliation / Evidence-Preservation Demand
13. Prayer for Relief
14. Demand for Jury Trial
15. Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration
16. Reservation of Rights
17. Signature Block
18. Arizona Practice Notes
19. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

CASE NO. [________________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (COMMERCIAL TRUCK COLLISION)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

(Tier [___] — Certificate re: Compulsory Arbitration attached)

For its Complaint against Defendants, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of [COUNTY], Arizona, and was lawfully operating a [passenger vehicle / motorcycle / etc.] within the State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Defendant Driver") is, upon information and belief, a resident of [COUNTY / STATE] who at all material times held (or was required to hold) a commercial driver's license and was operating the subject commercial motor vehicle. Defendant Driver may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4 / 4.2.

3. Defendant [MOTOR CARRIER NAME] ("Defendant Carrier") is a [corporation / limited liability company] operating as a motor carrier under USDOT No. [________] and MC No. [________] that at all material times owned, leased, controlled, dispatched, and/or operated the subject commercial motor vehicle and employed, contracted with, or otherwise engaged Defendant Driver. Defendant Carrier may be served through its statutory agent: [STATUTORY AGENT NAME & ADDRESS].

4. At all material times, the tractor and/or trailer bore the placard, logo, name, and/or USDOT number of Defendant Carrier, and Defendant Driver was operating the commercial motor vehicle for the benefit of and under the operating authority of Defendant Carrier.

5. The fictitiously named Doe, ABC, and XYZ Defendants are persons or entities whose identities are presently unknown, including any additional owner, lessor, lessee, broker, shipper, maintainer, or employer of the subject vehicle or driver. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 14 and A.R.S. § 12-123 et seq., because the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court and the claims are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court.

7. Venue is proper in this County under A.R.S. § 12-401 because the Collision occurred in this County and/or Defendants reside or conduct business here.

8. Arizona follows a pure comparative-fault regime. A.R.S. § 12-2505. Plaintiff brings this action consistent with that framework.

4. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] vehicle traveling [direction] on [STREET / ROUTE / INTERSTATE] at or near [INTERSECTION / LANDMARK / MILE MARKER], in [CITY], Arizona (the "Collision").

10. At the same time and place, Defendant Driver was operating a [YEAR / MAKE] [tractor-trailer / semi / 18-wheeler / straight truck / commercial motor vehicle] (the "Truck"), bearing trailer No. [________] and displaying the name and/or USDOT number of Defendant Carrier.

11. The Truck was a "commercial motor vehicle" within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 and applicable Arizona law (A.R.S. § 28-5201), having a gross vehicle weight rating and/or gross combination weight rating in excess of the applicable threshold and/or being used in the transportation of property or passengers in commerce.

12. Roadway, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe].

13. The Collision occurred when Defendant Driver [DESCRIBE THE MANNER — e.g., failed to maintain a proper lookout and rear-ended Plaintiff's vehicle; made an unsafe lane change; failed to yield the right-of-way; lost control of the Truck; jackknifed; ran a red light or stop sign; made an improper turn; was driving while fatigued / over hours; was driving too fast for conditions].

14. Plaintiff had the right-of-way and operated Plaintiff's vehicle lawfully and carefully at all material times.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, internal injuries, and disfiguring scarring], because of the enormous disparity in mass and force between a fully loaded commercial truck and Plaintiff's vehicle.

16. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS] and has undergone [TREATMENT], with future care anticipated. All injuries and damages were the foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of Defendants' conduct.

5. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Driver Defendant)

17. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 16.

18. Duty. Defendant Driver, as a professional commercial driver, owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the operation, maintenance, and control of the Truck, including the duty to obey Arizona traffic laws and the standards governing commercial motor vehicles, and to keep a proper lookout for others lawfully sharing the roadway.

19. Breach. Defendant Driver breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout;
• Operating the Truck at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent for the size and weight of the vehicle and the conditions then existing;
• Following too closely given the Truck's loaded stopping distance;
• Failing to maintain proper control of the Truck and its load;
• Making an unsafe lane change, turn, or movement;
• Failing to yield the right-of-way;
• Driving while fatigued, drowsy, or in violation of hours-of-service limits;
• Driving while distracted, inattentive, or impaired; and
• Failing to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the Collision.

20. Causation. Defendant Driver's breaches were the but-for and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

6. COUNT II — VICARIOUS LIABILITY / RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (Carrier Defendant)

21. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 20.

22. At the time of the Collision, Defendant Driver was the agent, servant, employee, and/or statutory employee of Defendant Carrier and was acting within the scope of that agency or employment, in furtherance of Defendant Carrier's business and under its operating authority.

23. Defendant Carrier is therefore vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant Driver under the doctrine of respondeat superior and principles of agency.

24. Further, because the Truck was operated under Defendant Carrier's federal operating authority and bore its USDOT number, name, and/or placard, Defendant Carrier is liable for the operation of the Truck under the logo / placard-liability and statutory-employee doctrines applicable to motor carriers, regardless of whether Defendant Driver was a common-law employee or an owner-operator/independent contractor.

25. Defendant Carrier's vicarious liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COUNT III — NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION, RETENTION & ENTRUSTMENT (Carrier Defendant)

26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 25.

27. Defendant Carrier owed Plaintiff and the motoring public an independent, non-delegable duty to use reasonable care in hiring, qualifying, training, supervising, and retaining its drivers, and in entrusting its commercial motor vehicles only to safe, qualified, and competent drivers.

28. Defendant Carrier breached that duty by, among other things:

• Hiring and/or retaining Defendant Driver when it knew or should have known that Defendant Driver was incompetent, unqualified, inexperienced, unfit, or unsafe to operate a commercial motor vehicle;
• Failing to investigate Defendant Driver's driving history, employment history, criminal history, medical qualification, and prior safety record before and during employment;
• Failing to verify that Defendant Driver held a valid commercial driver's license and current medical certification, and maintained a complete driver-qualification ("DQ") file;
• Failing to adequately train and supervise Defendant Driver in the safe operation of a commercial motor vehicle, including defensive driving, fatigue management, and compliance with hours-of-service rules;
• Negligently entrusting the Truck to Defendant Driver when Defendant Carrier knew or should have known of Defendant Driver's unfitness; and
• Failing to enforce its own safety policies and the applicable motor-carrier safety regulations.

29. Defendant Carrier's negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and entrustment was a direct and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

8. COUNT IV — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE

30. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 29.

31. Defendant Carrier (and any owner, lessor, or maintainer of the Truck) owed a duty to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain the Truck — including its brakes, tires, lighting, coupling devices, steering, and load-securement systems — in safe operating condition at all times, as required by ordinary care and by 49 C.F.R. Part 396.

32. Defendant Carrier breached that duty by failing to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain the Truck; failing to remove it from service when defective; failing to keep required maintenance and driver-vehicle-inspection records; and/or operating the Truck with known or knowable mechanical defects.

33. The defective and negligently maintained condition of the Truck was a direct and proximate cause, or contributing cause, of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

9. COUNT V — NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FMCSR Violations)

34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 33.

35. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ("FMCSR"), 49 C.F.R. Parts 382–397, establish safety standards for motor carriers, commercial drivers, and commercial motor vehicles. Arizona regulates motor-carrier safety under A.R.S. Title 28, Chapter 14 (§§ 28-5201 to 28-5245) and has adopted the FMCSR for intrastate commercial motor vehicles through Ariz. Admin. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Article 2. These standards are designed for the protection of persons lawfully using the roadway, including Plaintiff.

36. Defendant Driver and Defendant Carrier violated one or more of the following provisions, as applicable:

• 49 C.F.R. Part 395 (Hours of Service) — including the 11-hour driving limit and 14-hour on-duty window (49 C.F.R. § 395.3) and the requirement to maintain accurate records of duty status via an electronic logging device ("ELD") (49 C.F.R. § 395.8), by permitting or requiring Defendant Driver to drive while fatigued or beyond lawful limits, and/or by falsifying or failing to maintain logs;
• 49 C.F.R. Part 391 (Driver Qualification) — by using a driver who was not qualified, not properly licensed, not medically certified, and/or for whom no complete DQ file was maintained (49 C.F.R. §§ 391.11, 391.21, 391.25, 391.51);
• 49 C.F.R. Part 382 (Controlled Substances and Alcohol Testing) — by failing to conduct required pre-employment, random, reasonable-suspicion, and/or post-accident drug and alcohol testing;
• 49 C.F.R. Part 396 (Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance) — by failing to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain the Truck and to keep the required records (49 C.F.R. §§ 396.3, 396.11, 396.17); and
• 49 C.F.R. Parts 390, 392, 393, and 397 — governing general safety, the safe driving of commercial motor vehicles, required parts and accessories, and the transportation of hazardous materials, as applicable.

37. Plaintiff is within the class of persons these regulations and the adopting Arizona provisions were enacted to protect, and the Collision is the type of harm they were designed to prevent.

38. Defendants' violation of [CITE THE SPECIFIC PROVISION(S) APPLICABLE] constitutes negligence per se under Arizona law and was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

10. COMPARATIVE FAULT STATEMENT

39. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2505, Plaintiff denies any comparative fault. In the alternative, if comparative fault is asserted, any such fault does not bar recovery and reduces damages only in the proportion determined by the trier of fact. Fault shall be apportioned among all responsible parties, including any properly designated nonparties at fault, under A.R.S. § 12-2506.

11. DAMAGES

40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of:

• Past and future medical expenses — emergency, hospital, surgical, diagnostic, rehabilitative, pharmaceutical, and physician care;
• Future medical and life-care costs, to be proven at trial;
• Past lost wages and loss of future earning capacity;
• Physical pain, suffering, and emotional distress — past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement;
• Loss of enjoyment of life; and
• Property damage to Plaintiff's vehicle and personal effects, including loss of use and diminution in value.

41. Plaintiff also seeks punitive or exemplary damages if supported by clear and convincing evidence of aggravated, malicious, or outrageous conduct — including knowingly dispatching a fatigued or unqualified driver, operating the Truck with known defective equipment, or falsifying logs.

42. No statutory cap applies to the damages sought herein. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31.

12. SPOLIATION / EVIDENCE-PRESERVATION DEMAND

43. Plaintiff hereby demands that Defendants, and each of them, immediately preserve and not alter, destroy, discard, repair, overwrite, or place back into service the following evidence, the destruction of which would constitute spoliation and may support sanctions and/or an adverse-inference instruction:

• The subject tractor and trailer, in their post-collision condition, including all cargo and load-securement equipment;
• The electronic logging device (ELD) and all hours-of-service records, driver's daily logs, and supporting documents;
• The vehicle's engine control module ("ECM") / "black box," event data recorder, and telematics, GPS, and fleet-management data;
• All driver-qualification (DQ) file materials, including application, motor vehicle records, medical certification, road-test, and annual review documents;
• Dispatch, trip, fuel, toll, bill-of-lading, weigh-station, and communication records (including text messages, qualcomm/messaging, and email) relating to the trip;
• Post-accident drug- and alcohol-test results and chain-of-custody documents under 49 C.F.R. Part 382;
• Vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance records under 49 C.F.R. Part 396; and
• Any dash-camera, in-cab camera, surveillance, or telematics video and any photographs of the scene or vehicles.

44. Defendants are on notice that these items are relevant to this action and must be preserved pending discovery.

13. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. General (non-economic) damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
2. Special (economic) damages, including medical expenses, lost earnings, and property damage, in an amount to be proven at trial;
3. Punitive or exemplary damages as permitted by Arizona law;
4. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum lawful rate;
5. Costs and, where applicable, reasonable attorney's fees; and
6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

14. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 38 and Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23.

15. CERTIFICATE REGARDING COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

Pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 72–77 and the applicable local rule, the undersigned certifies that the amount in controversy [exceeds / does not exceed] the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration in [COUNTY] County. Accordingly, this case [is not / is] subject to compulsory arbitration.

16. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15 to conform to the evidence and to add parties or claims as discovery proceeds.

17. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted this [____] day of [MONTH], 20[____].

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.

Arizona Bar No. [________]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[ADDRESS] — [PHONE] — [EMAIL]

18. ARIZONA PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions must be filed within two years of accrual. A.R.S. § 12-542. If a government entity is involved, a notice of claim must be served within 180 days under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, with suit filed within one year (A.R.S. § 12-821).
• Pure comparative fault — favorable to plaintiffs. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by, but never barred by, the plaintiff's percentage of fault (subject to the narrow exception for intentionally or willfully self-caused injury). Fault is apportioned among all parties and properly designated nonparties at fault under A.R.S. § 12-2506; comply with the rule and deadline (Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)) for naming nonparties at fault, because the carrier will commonly attempt to shift fault to the shipper, broker, a third driver, or a maintenance contractor.
• FMCSR adoption. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 C.F.R. Parts 382–397) apply to interstate motor carriers directly. Arizona regulates motor-carrier safety under A.R.S. Title 28, Chapter 14 (§§ 28-5201 to 28-5245) and adopts the FMCSR for intrastate commercial motor vehicles through Ariz. Admin. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Article 2. Note that, since 2018, Arizona's intrastate CMV weight threshold is 26,001 lbs (A.R.S. § 28-5201(1)); lighter intrastate vehicles may fall outside the state's adoption of the FMCSR. Confirm whether the carrier was operating in interstate or intrastate commerce before relying on negligence per se.
• Direct vs. vicarious liability. Plead both the vicarious count (Count II) and the direct-negligence counts (Counts III–IV). Where the carrier admits respondeat superior, the continued viability of independent negligent-entrustment/hiring claims can be contested; the availability of a punitive claim generally preserves the direct counts. Confirm current Arizona law before trial.
• No damages cap. The Arizona Constitution prohibits statutory caps on damages for personal injury or death. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31. Punitive damages require clear-and-convincing proof of an "evil mind."
• Compulsory arbitration. Cases at or below the county's jurisdictional arbitration limit are subject to compulsory arbitration; the certificate (Section 15) must accompany the complaint. Most serious truck-injury cases exceed the limit and proceed in the standard civil track.
• Spoliation. Send a litigation-hold / preservation letter immediately and, where warranted, seek expedited inspection and preservation of the truck, ELD, ECM "black box," logs, and DQ file before they are altered, repaired, or destroyed.
• Service. Service is governed by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4, 4.1 (in-state), and 4.2 (out-of-state); out-of-state motor carriers may also be served through the carrier's designated process agent (BOC-3) under 49 C.F.R. Part 366.

19. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Arizona Revised Statutes (Title 12 — Courts and Civil Proceedings; Title 28 — Transportation) — https://www.azleg.gov/arstitle/
• A.R.S. § 12-542 (two-year limitations) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00542.htm
• A.R.S. § 12-2505 (comparative fault); § 12-2506 (several liability) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02505.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-5201 (commercial motor vehicle definition); §§ 28-5201 to 28-5245 (Motor Carrier Safety) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/05201.htm
• Ariz. Admin. Code Title 17, Ch. 5, Art. 2 (state adoption of the FMCSR)
• Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31 (no damages cap)
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 382–397 — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B
• Part 382 (controlled substances and alcohol testing); Part 391 (driver qualification); Part 395 (hours of service / ELD); Part 396 (inspection, repair, and maintenance); Parts 390, 392, 393, 397 (general, driving of CMVs, parts/accessories, hazardous materials)
• Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 4, 4.1, 4.2, 8, 15, 26(b)(5), 38, 72–77); Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (RAJI) — Personal Injury / Agency

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Arizona must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.