Kariah Buckmire of St. Clair County pleads for a chance to prove that Zachary Langley of Caseyville contributed to an accident that happened when a vehicle behind him shoved his vehicle into hers.
She must state a plausible claim against Langley in order to convince U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn to remand the suit to St. Clair County where she filed it.
Primary defendant Billy Dollison resides in Missouri and his employer Energy Transport Solutions operates there, so without Langley diversity jurisdiction would apply.
Buckmire’s counsel Kristina Cooksey of Belleville moved for St. Clair County jurisdiction in October.
“Langley never sets forth his speed prior to impact, the manner with which he applied his brakes, his following distance prior to impact, whether he was at a full and complete stop, whether he stopped with sufficient space between his vehicle and plaintiff’s vehicle, whether the operation of his vehicle was reasonable, or whether he exercised due care for the traffic conditions then and there on the roadway,” she wrote.
For Energy Transport Solutions, Bradley Hansmann of St. Louis County responded on Nov. 13 that Dollison and Langley swore Langley came to a full stop.
He offered dashboard camera video.
He claimed Buckmire alleged a version where Dollison struck a vehicle which was pushed into her vehicle and a version where Langley’s vehicle struck her vehicle of its own accord.
Cooksey filed the complaint in St. Clair County circuit court in July, stating the collision happened in July on Interstate 55 at milepost 1.8.
She claimed Dollison operated a vehicle that “struck the rear of another vehicle, causing it to strike the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle.”
She claimed Dollison failed to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles, that he failed to properly apply his brakes, that he operated his vehicle at a speed greater than reasonable and proper, and that he followed Buckmire’s vehicle more closely than was reasonable and proper.
She further claimed his acts and omissions caused physical and mental injuries, some or all of which are permanent.
She sued Energy Transport Solutions for negligence in hiring, training and supervising.
She asserted a count of negligence against Langley, stating his vehicle “struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle, causing her to strike another vehicle.”
She claimed Langley failed to keep a proper lookout particularly for Buckmire’s vehicle.
She claimed he failed to properly apply his brakes.
She claimed he operated at a speed greater than reasonable and proper.
She claimed he followed Buckmire’s vehicle more closely than reasonable and proper.
Langley’s counsel Tori Walls of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville filed an answer admitting contact between the vehicles and denying all other allegations.
Hansmann removed the complaint to district court in September, claiming Buckmire included Langley for the impermissible purpose of destroying federal jurisdiction.
He claimed Buckmire omitted facts that would negate Langley’s liability and prove she had no colorable action against him.
He claimed the court should dismiss Langley and adjudicate the case.
He directed the court’s attention to a change of subjects in the complaint.
He claimed when Buckmire attempted to allege a claim against Langley she was forced to state that it was not a person but Langley’s vehicle that rear ended her vehicle.
He claimed a purposeful change in agent from person to thing belied the fact that Buckmire knew Langley had no part in any damages caused to her.
Cooksey responded on Oct. 15 that Buckley alleged Langley failed to properly apply brakes and followed Buckmire more closely than was reasonable and proper.
“There is a question of law and of fact as to each of these allegations and when all are resolved in a light most favorable to the plaintiff there is more than just a possibility that plaintiff will prevail against defendant Zachary Langley,” she wrote.
Hansmann responded on Nov. 13 that the count against Langley didn’t mention the chain collision detailed in other counts.
“No mention of any action even taken by defendant Langley,” he wrote.
He claimed the whole truth would lay bare that Langley was a middle man deserving no allocation of liability.
“Plaintiff’s omission of these pertinent facts demonstrate plaintiff’s willingness to distort the truth in order to attempt to destroy diversity jurisdiction,” he wrote.
This article was first published in Madison Record.
