CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1370

THERROYN MILLER v. JOE BRANDAEUR

Filed: Feb 24, 2024
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: a water crate — yes, the plastic grid thing that holds 40 bottles of Poland Spring — turned into a high-speed missile on I-35, launched from the back of an unsecured truck, and allegedly caused a multi-vehicle crash that’s now the centerpiece of a $75,000 lawsuit. If this were a scene in Fast & Furious 27: The Litigation, we’d accuse Hollywood of going too far. But no. This is real life. In Oklahoma. And someone is now suing over flying hydration.

Meet Therroyn Miller, our plaintiff, an Oklahoma City resident just trying to get from point A to point B without becoming collateral damage in what can only be described as a public service failure in cargo management. On February 24, 2024 — a day that probably started with a decent playlist and zero suspicion of airborne beverage containers — Miller was a passenger cruising down I-35 through Garvin County. Nothing unusual. Just highway hypnosis, maybe a podcast on in the background, the usual rhythm of Oklahoma travel. Then, out of nowhere, chaos. According to the petition, Joe Brandaeur — yes, that’s his name, and no, we’re not making that up — was driving a vehicle ahead of Miller’s, hauling what the filing delicately refers to as a “water crate” in the back of his truck. And by “hauling,” we mean “leaving completely unsecured like it was on a casual joyride.”

Now, let’s talk about water crates for a second. They’re not small. They’re not light. They’re bulky, grid-like plastic beasts designed to carry dozens of water bottles, and when they’re not strapped down, they behave exactly like what they become in this story: dangerous roadborne projectiles. And that’s exactly what happened. While Brandaeur motored along, the crate decided it had seen enough of truck life and launched itself into the open air, becoming a rogue piece of highway debris. The petition doesn’t specify whether it struck Miller’s vehicle directly or forced the driver to swerve violently to avoid a collision — though honestly, at highway speeds, does it matter? Either way, the result was the same: a crash. And Miller, completely innocent and just along for the ride, got hurt. Bad enough, at least, that he’s now claiming “significant personal injuries,” along with emotional distress, medical bills, lost income, and all the fun extras that come with being unexpectedly introduced to the pavement via vehicular mayhem.

So who’s being sued? Two parties: Joe Brandaeur, the man allegedly behind the wheel and in charge of his own cargo, and “John Doe Corporation,” a placeholder name for Brandaeur’s employer — because, as the filing suggests, he might have been working at the time. That’s where the legal doctrine of respondeat superior comes in — a fancy Latin phrase that basically means “the boss is on the hook when the employee screws up during work.” If Brandaeur was delivering water, restocking a store, or doing literally anything job-related when his truck became a crate cannon, then his employer could be liable too. And that’s why “John Doe Corporation” is named — not because the plaintiff is being mysterious, but because they’re reserving the right to figure out exactly who signed Brandaeur’s paycheck once the investigation rolls forward. It’s like a legal version of “We’ll name names later.”

The core of the lawsuit? Negligence. Plain and simple. The claim is that anyone driving a vehicle with loose cargo has a duty to keep the road safe for others — and that duty was breached when Brandaeur failed to secure that crate. You don’t need a law degree to understand this one: if you’re going to carry something in the back of a truck, especially on an interstate, you strap it down. That’s not just common sense — it’s the law in most places. Unsecured cargo isn’t just a nuisance; it’s a known hazard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that unsecured loads cause thousands of crashes every year, many of them fatal. And yet, here we are, with a grown adult somehow forgetting that physics applies to plastic crates too.

Now, let’s talk money. Miller is asking for over $75,000. Is that a lot? Well, for a water crate? Objectively, yes. You could buy thousands of water crates for that amount. But in the context of personal injury — medical bills, missed work, ongoing pain, therapy for the emotional trauma of suddenly careening off the road because someone couldn’t be bothered to use a bungee cord — $75,000 isn’t outrageous. It’s not a windfall. It’s not even close to what you’d see in a catastrophic injury case. This is the kind of number that suggests real harm, but not life-altering devastation. It’s the “I needed surgery, I missed three months of work, and now I flinch every time I see a truck with something in the back” level of damages. And honestly? If the injuries check out, it’s not unreasonable.

But here’s the real tea: the absurdity isn’t just that a water crate caused a crash. It’s that we’re now in a place where we have to sue over this. That someone had to hire a lawyer, file a petition, and demand judgment from the court because another adult couldn’t be trusted to secure a single piece of cargo. It’s the sheer banality of the danger. It’s not a drunk driver. It’s not a texting-while-driving thriller. It’s a dude who apparently thought, “Eh, the wind won’t get it,” and then, surprise — the wind got it. And now we’re in court.

We’re also not mad at plaintiff’s attorney R. Todd Waddell for going full legal throttle here. He’s doing his job. But you can almost hear the courtroom drama: “Your Honor, the defendant unleashed a hydration hazard upon the public roadway.” “Objection, Your Honor — leading the witness on the emotional impact of rogue bottled water infrastructure.” This case is equal parts tragic and darkly comic, a perfect storm of poor judgment and physics.

At the end of the day, we’re rooting for accountability — not just for Miller to be made whole, but for every driver out there to remember that what’s in your truck bed doesn’t stay in your truck bed unless you make it stay. A bungee cord costs $12. A lawsuit costs way more. And peace of mind while driving 70 mph? Priceless.

So let this be a warning to all: secure your cargo. Because the next flying water crate could be yours — and the only thing worse than being hit by one… is being sued because of one.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$75,000 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Negligence Plaintiff was injured in a traffic collision caused by Defendant's negligence.
2 Respondeat Superior Plaintiff claims damages against Defendant's employer under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

Petition Text

750 words
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA THERROYN MILLER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. JOE BRAN DAEUR, an individual, JOHN DOE CORPORATION, a business entity operating in the State of Oklahoma, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, THERROYN MILLER, by and through his attorney, R. Todd Waddell, and for his Petition against the Defendant, JOE BRANDAEUR, an individual, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, states and alleges as set forth below. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Miller, was at all times relevant to this law suit, and presently, a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma (945 NE 28th, Oklahoma City, OK 73105). 2. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this suit, JOE BRANDAEUR, an individual, was driving a vehicle in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 3. That upon information and belief, Defendant JOE BRANDAEUR was operating a vehicle on behalf of, or in furtherance of the business of, JOHN DOE CORPORATION, a business entity. 4. The incidents giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries, a traffic collision, occurred in Garvin County. 5. Plaintiff brings state law claims for negligence and respondeat superior. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties. 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. 8. Venue is proper in Oklahoma County, and as such, this Court should assume the same having personal jurisdiction over the Parties, and subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. FACTS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS 9. On or about February 24, 2024, Plaintiff, THERROYN MILLER, was a passenger in a vehicle driving along I-35 in Garvin County, Oklahoma. 10. That while Plaintiff MILLER was a passenger in the vehicle in which he was riding, Defendant JOE BRANDAUER was operating/driving a vehicle in front of the vehicle in which Plaintiff MILLER was riding. 11. That while JOE BRANDAUER was driving his vehicle, Defendant BRANDAUER had placed an object in the back of his truck, believed to be a "water crate." 12. That while JOE BRANDAUER was driving his vehicle, the water crate Defendant BRANDAUER had placed in the back of his truck was not secured. 13. That while JOE BRANDAUER was driving his vehicle, the water crate Defendant BRANDAUER had placed in the back of his truck flew out of the back of the truck, colliding with the vehicle Plaintiff MILLER was riding in, and/or causing the driver of Plaintiff's vehicle to swerve to avoid the collision. 14. That as a result of the water crate flying out of the back of Defendant Brandauer's truck, the vehicle Plaintiff Miller was riding in, crashed. 15. That as a result of the crash, Plaintiff Miller suffered significant personal injuries. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE 16. Defendants owed a duty of care to operate their vehicle in safe and secure manner so as to not cause harm to other drivers on the road. 17. Defendants breached that duty of care by failing to secure the object in the back of their truck so that it would not fly out and hit other vehicles, or cause them to take emergency evasive action. 18. Defendants breached that duty of care by failing to operate the vehicle they were driving in a manner that any object they had placed in the back of their vehicle would not fly out and hit another vehicle, or cause a vehicle to take emergency evasive action. 19. Plaintiff suffered physical injuries as a result of Defendants’ negligence as set forth above. 20. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress as a result of his physical injuries, which resulted of Defendants’ negligence as set forth above. 21. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff Miller has suffered damages (medical expenses, pain, suffering, temporary loss of income, permanent physical damage, and emotional damages, including but not limited to anxiety, worry, fear, among other things) in excess of $75,000.00 COUNT II RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 22. To the extent that Defendant BRANDAUER was working on behalf of other persons or business entities, those persons or entities are liable under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior. 23. Plaintiff Miller makes a claim for has damages (medical expenses, pain, suffering, temporary loss of income, permanent physical damage, and emotional damages, including but not limited to anxiety, worry, fear, among other things) against those persons or entities under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior in excess of $75,000.00 PRAYER Plaintiff THERROYN MILLER prays for judgement against the Defendants as set forth above, as well as any other judgement this Court finds appropriate. FOR THE FIRM, R. TODD WADDELL, OBA #17,784 R. TODD WADDELL LAW 6440 AVONDALE DRIVE, SUITE 201 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116 (405) 446-8681/ (405) 276-8024 (FAX) [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF THERROYN MILLER ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.