IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
DESMOND RIVERA,
Plaintiff,
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC.,
BRAULIO DELGADO and
RAMON DELGADO,
Defendants.
PETITION
COMES NOW DESMOND RIVERA, Plaintiff in the above-styled action against Defendants TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC.; BRAULIO DELGADO, and RAMON DELGADO and alleges as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff DESMOND RIVERA ("Rivera") is and at all times was a resident of Moore, Oklahoma.
2. At all times material hereto, Defendant, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION (TMC), was a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma through its agents, contractors, employees, partner and/or subsidiaries, and was engaged in the design, testing, manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of its products, and is hereby sued under its common or assumed name as allowed by law. At all times relevant, TMC acted by and through its wholly owned companies (other named Defendants below) to allow for the marketing, advertising,
supplying, selling and profiting from the sale of its products in the State of Oklahoma. The sale of Toyota vehicles in the State of Oklahoma was intentional and TMC had reason to know and knew that its products would be used in Oklahoma by consumers living in and traveling through this State. Toyota Motor Corporation may be served with process of this Court upon its registered agent for service of process The Corporation Company located at 1833 S. Morgan Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73128, and through service by way of the Hague convention. TMC does business by and through its duly elected corporate division, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, and as its alter ego, it is subject to jurisdiction in the US and Oklahoma.
3. At all times material hereto, Defendant, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. (TMNA), was a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma through its agents, contractors, employees, partner and/or subsidiaries, and was engaged in the design, testing, manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of the subject vehicle, and is hereby sued under its common or assumed name as allowed by law. At all times relevant, TMNA acted to permit the marketing, advertising, supplying, selling and profiting from the sale of its products in the State of Oklahoma. The sale of Toyota vehicles in the State of Oklahoma was intentional and TMNA had reason to know and knew that its products would be used in Oklahoma by consumers living in and traveling through this State. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. may be served with process of this Court upon its headquarters at its headquarters at 6565 Headquarters Dr., Plano, TX 75024. TMNA is a division and alter ego of TMC and TMS.
4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., (TMS) was a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Oklahoma through its agents, contractors, employees, partner and/or subsidiaries, and was engaged in the design, testing,
manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of the subject vehicle, and is hereby sued under its common or assumed name as allowed by law. At all times relevant, TMS acted to directly market, advertise, supply, sell and profit from the sale of its products in the State of Oklahoma. The sale of Toyota vehicles in the State of Oklahoma was intentional and TMS had reason to know and knew that its products would be used in Oklahoma by consumers living in and traveling through this State. The Corporation Company located at 1833 S. Morgan Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73128.
5. All of the entities described in paragraphs 4 through 6 are hereafter referred to jointly as "Toyota."
6. Defendant BRAULIO DELGADO is and was a resident of the State of Oklahoma.
7. Defendant RAMON DELGADO was and is a resident of the State of Oklahoma.
8. On March 27th, 2025, Rivera was the driver and sole occupant of a 2008 Toyota Yaris VIN # JTDBT903591313583.
9. At about 4:53 AM, Rivera was operating his vehicle on S. Macarthur Blvd in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
10. Rivera’s Toyota Yaris was stopped in traffic, waiting to turn left into his place of employment, Hobby Lobby.
11. Braulio Delgado was operating a 2024 Ford Mustang on S. MacArthur Boulevard. Said Defendant was operating his vehicle at a high rate of speed and impacted with the vehicle immediately behind Rivera.
12. The force of the from Braulio Delgado’s Mustang pushed the intervening vehicle into the rear of Rivera’s vehicle.
13. The vehicle operated by Braulio Delgado at the time of the subject car crash had
been provided to said Defendant by the vehicle’s owner, Defendant Ramon Delgado.
14. As a result of the impact, the Rivera’s seatback in the subject Yaris broke rearward, causing severe injuries to Rivera.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. Jurisdiction and venue as to all claims is proper in Oklahoma County pursuant to 12 O.S. §141.
16. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendant Braulio Delgado was and is a resident of the State of Oklahoma.
17. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendant Ramon Delgado was and is a resident of the State of Oklahoma.
18. Toyota Defendants have significant personal contacts with Oklahoma; they have purposely availed themselves of the rights and benefits of the state of Oklahoma, and thereby availed themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court.
19. There is a nexus between this forum and the underlying controversy because the activities and occurrences at issue occurred here in the County of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
20. Toyota carried on regular business was employed and/or habitually engaged in its vocation by virtue of operating businesses here, selling things and providing services to people and entities here.
21. Toyota directly and by agents transacted business and performed work and services in Oklahoma, contracted to supply goods, services, and manufactured products in Oklahoma, caused tortious injury in Oklahoma by acts and omissions in Oklahoma, caused tortious injury in Oklahoma and/or outside of Oklahoma by an act or omission outside Oklahoma where it regularly did and/or solicited business, engaged in any other persistent course of conduct in the State and/or derived
substantial revenue from goods, services, and/or manufactured products used or consumed in Oklahoma.
22. The amount in controversy of this claim exceeds $75,000.00.
COUNT I: STRICT LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA
23. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs set forth herein as if restated in their entirety here.
24. The Subject vehicle and its driver’s seat were in substantially the same condition as they were when they left Toyota’s control and were therefore reasonably expected to be capable of inflicting substantial harm.
25. Toyota designed, tested, manufactured, assembled, equipped, marketed, distributed and sold the Yaris and its components.
26. The unreasonably dangerous and defective condition of the subject vehicle and its driver’s seat, which existed at the time they left Toyota’s control, was not a defect which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer of ordinary knowledge.
27. The Subject vehicle and its driver’s seat were being utilized in a manner which is intended and reasonably anticipated by Toyota.
28. At all material times, Toyota designed, developed, manufactured, marketed, assembled, tested, distributed, sold, and placed into the stream of commerce the Subject Vehicle.
29. Toyota knew that the subject vehicle was unreasonably dangerous and defective as designed, manufactured, and marketed by Toyota because it was not crashworthy for several reasons, including but not limited to:
a. The Subject vehicle was not reasonably safe from an occupant safety standpoint by design;
b. The seat/seatbelt system was inadequately designed so that in foreseeable/intended rear end collisions these components were not sufficiently
strong to restrain the occupant and ameliorate, minimize or avoid catastrophic injuries to those occupying the driver seat;
c. The Subject Vehicle’s restraint system was not safely designed to substantially reduce the risk of injury in the event of the failure/collapse of the seat in predictable rear end collisions;
d. Toyota failed to modify or redesign the Subject vehicle’s driver’s restraint system to avoid the risk of catastrophic injury to occupants in predictable rear end collisions;
e. The subject vehicle was unreasonably dangerous in design because at the time it left Toyota’s control it deviated in a material way from safe performance required to mitigate and/or avoid catastrophic injury to occupants in foreseeable rear-end collisions;
f. The product was designed with an inadequate rear-collision restraint system, including the seat structure and seat belt system, and Toyota failed to act as a reasonably prudent manufacturer and, therefore it is liable for neither properly designing the product before sale and/or for failing to provide an adequate warning of such characteristics to users of the product;
g. The seat system was designed so that in foreseeable rear-end collisions it would fail/deform resulting in injurious loading to the occupant and cause or increase the risk of catastrophic and/or fatal injuries;
h. The seat system to include the seatback in the subject vehicle was unreasonably dangerous because it did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect in a foreseeable rear-end collision; and
i. By other defective and non-crashworthy design features to be adduced and proven during the processing and trial of this case.
30. Rivera was injured because the Subject Vehicle was unsafe, unreasonably dangerous, and not crashworthy as designed, manufactured, and marketed by Toyota.
31. Because of the defective design, manufacture, and production of the aforementioned aspects, components, and systems of the Subject Vehicle, the vehicle was defective in design and/or manufacture and should not have been placed into the stream of commerce without design modification by Toyota.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct by Toyota,
Rivera suffered catastrophic injuries, medical losses, and other damages.
COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA
33. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs set forth above as if restated in their entirety herein.
34. Toyota owed a duty of reasonable care in the design, development, testing, manufacture, assembly, marketing, sale and distribution of the subject vehicle and its safety systems so as to avoid exposing occupants to unnecessary risks.
35. Toyota failed to use due care in designing, testing, manufacturing, and marketing the subject vehicle and its components to ensure that it was free from defects.
36. Toyota was careless and negligent and acted in disregard for the safety of occupants both generally and in the following specific ways:
a. Negligently designing the vehicle so that it was not crashworthy;
b. Negligently designing the seat/seat belt system so that it did not provide reasonable restraint in foreseeable rear end collisions;
c. Negligently designing the vehicle from an occupant protection standpoint;
d. Negligently testing the vehicle related to protection in rear end collisions;
e. Negligently failing to test the vehicle to ensure the design provides reasonable occupant protection in the event of foreseeable rear end collisions;
f. Failing to develop and require appropriate and necessary safety guidelines;
g. Failing to meet or exceed internal corporate guidelines;
h. Failing to inform consumers, including Plaintiff, of information that Toyota knew of the performance of the seat/seat belt system in foreseeable rear end collisions and thus depriving consumers of the right to make a conscious and free choice;
i. Failing to comply with the standards of care applicable to the automotive industry insofar as providing reasonable occupant protection in rear end
collisions to occupants;
j. Failing to properly design the product to adequately exceed the bare minimum standards applicable to passenger vehicles;
k. Negligently marketing the vehicle as a safe passenger vehicle and as reasonably safe in common and reasonably foreseeable crashes; and
l. Engaging in other acts or omissions constituting negligence and carelessness to be adduced during the pendency of this case.
37. Toyota knew or should have known that the subject vehicle was not adequately crashworthy in that in foreseeable rear end collisions the seat structure would deform in an unsafe manner causing injury to occupants.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Toyota’s aforementioned negligence, Rivera suffered catastrophic injuries which resulted in the Plaintiffs’ losses and other damages.
COUNT III: NEGLIGENCE OF BRAULIO DELGADO
39. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs set forth above as if restated in entirety herein.
40. At the time and place of this collision, Defendant Braulio Delgado:
a. Failed to keep a proper lookout;
b. Failed to operate its vehicle in a manner considerate of the safety and lives of theother persons lawfully on the road;
c. Failed to maintain an awareness of the road and traffic conditions and environment in which the vehicle was being driven;
d. Failed to maintain assured clear distance from the vehicle in front of him;
e. Drove his vehicle in a reckless manner in complete disregard for the safety of othermembers of the motoring public;
f. Failed to devote full time and attention to the driving of his vehicle
g. Failed to use the steering mechanism or brakes to avoid a collision.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Braulio Delgado’s negligence, Rivera
suffered injuries which resulted in Plaintiff’s damages as set forth herein.
COUNT IV: NEGLIGENCE ENTRUSTMENT BY DEFENDANT RAMON DELGADO
42. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs set forth above as if restated in entirety herein.
43. Ramon Delgado entrusted Braulio Delgado with the 2024 Ford Mustang knowing that the Mustang was a high performance vehicle capable of high speed travel.
44. Ramon Delgado knew, or should have known, that Braulio Delgado was not a licensed driver who had demonstrated his capability of operating a motor vehicle in a safe and appropriate manner.
45. Ramon Delgado knew, or should have known, it was likely that Braulio Delgado would drive the Mustang in a reckless and dangerous manner.
46. Despite Ramon Delgado’s knowledge of Braulio Delgado’s driving ability, or lack thereof; Braulio Delgado’s inability or unwillingness to obtain an Oklahoma driver’s license; and Braulio Delgado’s poor judgement, Ramon Delgado nonetheless entrusted Braulio Delgado with the subject Ford Mustang.
47. As a direct and proximate result of Ramon Delgado’s negligent entrustment of the subject Ford Mustang, Braulio Delgado was enabled to drive recklessly on March 27th, 2025.
48. As a direct and proximate result of Ramon Delgado’s negligent entrustment of the subject Ford Mustang, Rivera suffered injuries which resulted in Plaintiff’s losses and other damages.
COUNT V: PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT TOYOTA
49. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs set forth above as if restated in entirety herein.
50. Defendant Toyota, had actual knowledge of the danger to which the driver’s seat system subjected occupants. In failing to warn the occupants and/or failing to design a stronger seat, Toyota demonstrated an entire want of care, evidencing a reckless indifference and disregard to the consequences of their actions. Plaintiff, pursuant to Oklahoma law, are entitled to an award of punitive damages to deter Defendant Toyota from such conduct in the future.
DAMAGES
51. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of defendants, Plaintiff was catastrophically injured, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants the full value of said injuries, past and future, including damages for pain and suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement, medical expenses, medical care, treatment, and services, and loss of earning capacity.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
52. Enter a judgment in favor of Desmond Rivera against the Defendants, as concurrent tortfeasors, for:
a. His physical pain and suffering, past and future;
b. His mental pain and suffering, past and future;
c. His physical impairment;
d. His loss of earning capacity;
e. Medical expenses paid on his behalf;
f. Future medical care, treatment, and services;
g. Disfigurement;
h. All recoverable interest;
i. Punitive damages as allowed by Oklahoma law, but only based on the acts and conduct of Toyota and not based on the conduct of Toyota;
j. Award costs; and
k. Grant such further and other relief as the Court, justice, or equity may require or deem proper in the circumstances.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues presented.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jason E. Robinson
Richard L. Denney, OBA # 2297
Lydia JoAnn Barrett, OBA #11670
Jason E. Robinson, OBA #22289
DENNEY & BARRETT, P.C.
870 Copperfield Dr.
Norman, OK 73072
Tel: 405-364-8600
Fax: 405-364-3980
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorney Lien Claimed
Marcus Mears, OBA # 16430
CUNNINGHAM & MEARS, P.C.
5104 N. Francis Avenue, Suite 102
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Tel. (405) 232-1212
Fax. (405) 232-1675
[email protected]
Attorney for the Plaintiff
