23CV008736-910

23CV008736-910
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE 23 CVS _______
THE ESTATE OF HAILEY KAYE

BROOKS, by and through its Co-
Administrators JAMES BOYCE
BROOKS, III and APRIL FRAZIER
BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v. COMPLAINT
LANDEN CHRISTOPHER GLASS,

CC & CO. DANCE COMPLEX, INC.,
GREATER RALEIGH MERCHANTS
ASSOCIATION, INC. d/b/a SHOP
LOCAL RALEIGH, and D AND L
FLOATS, LLC,
Defendants.
NOW COMES Plaintiff, the Estate of Hailey Kaye Brooks, by and through its
Co-Administrators James Boyce Brooks, III (“Trey Brooks”) and April Frazier Brooks
(“April Brooks”), by and through undersigned counsel, complaining of Defendant
Landen Christopher Glass, CC & Co. Dance Complex, Inc., Greater Raleigh
Merchants Association, Inc. d/b/a Shop Local Raleigh, and D and L Floats, LLC, and
alleging as follows:
1
Electronically Filed Date: 4/14/2023 5:17 PM Wake County Clerk of Superior Court
INTRODUCTION
Hailey Brooks, the 11-year-old, beloved daughter of Trey and April Brooks, was
tragically killed at the Raleigh Christmas Parade on November 19, 2022 as a result
of the gross negligence and recklessness of Landen Glass and the organizations and
individuals entrusted with ensuring the safety of the parade’s participants. Hailey’s
death was foreseeable and would have been prevented if basic, reasonable, and well-
known safety protocols had been adopted and enforced. Hailey and her family loved
the Raleigh Christmas Parade. The Brooks family hopes the Raleigh Christmas
Parade will continue for many more generations. This action is brought to ensure
that those responsible for Hailey’s death are held accountable and to ensure that no
other child or person is hurt or killed by the recklessness of those entrusted with and
responsible for the safety of the children and attendees at this Raleigh tradition.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Hailey Kaye Brooks (“Hailey”) was a resident of Creedmoor, Granville
County, North Carolina. Hailey was born on November 2, 2011 and died on November
19, 2022 in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina at the Raleigh Christmas Parade.
2. Hailey was 11 years old when she died.
3. Hailey, still a minor upon her untimely death, was never married nor
had she any children.
4. Trey Brooks and April Brooks are the parents of Hailey, were named
Co-Administrators of the Estate of Hailey Kaye Brooks (the “Estate”) by the Granville
2
County Clerk of Court, and are acting as Co-Administrators of the Estate in the
institution of this action, which is being filed within two years of Hailey’s death.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Landen Christopher Glass
(hereinafter “Defendant Glass”) is a resident of Goode, Bedford County, Virginia.
6. Defendant CC & Co. Dance Complex, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant CC &
Co.”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of North
Carolina. Defendant CC & Co.’s principal place of business is 8863 Six Forks Road,
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina.
7. Defendant Greater Raleigh Merchants Association, Inc. (hereinafter
“Defendant GRMA”) is a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of North Carolina. Defendant GRMA does business under the assumed
name “Shop Local Raleigh”. Defendant GRMA’s principal place of business is 4001
Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina.
8. Defendant D and L Floats, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant D and L
Floats”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
State of North Carolina. Defendant D and L Floats’ principal place of business is 513
Chambers Road, Rougemont, Durham County, North Carolina.
9. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over all Defendants by virtue
of, inter alia, North Carolina General Statutes §1-75.4.
10. Subject matter jurisdiction over this action is conferred upon and vested
in this Court under and by virtue of, inter alia, North Carolina General Statutes
§§7A-240 and 7A-243.
3
11. The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.00.
12. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-82, Wake County is an appropriate
venue for this lawsuit.
THE RALEIGH CHRISTMAS PARADE
13. Since 1944, Defendant GRMA has organized and operated the annual
Raleigh Christmas Parade through downtown Raleigh.
14. The Raleigh Christmas Parade that took place on November 19, 2022
shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Parade.”
15. As the Parade operator, Defendant GRMA selected the companies and
organizations that were permitted to participate in the Parade.
16. Defendant GRMA contracted with Defendant D and L Floats to provide
floats, vehicles to the pull floats, and drivers to drive vehicles used in the Parade.
17. Defendant CC & Co. operates a dance studio in Raleigh.
18. Defendant CC & Co. applied to Defendant GRMA and was granted
permission by Defendant GRMA to participate in the Parade.
DRIVER HISTORY
19. Defendant D and L Floats typically provides the driver and vehicle to
pull its trailers in the Raleigh Christmas Parade.
20. In this instance, Defendant CC & Co. requested authorization from
Defendant D and L Floats to permit a former CC & Co. student, Defendant Glass, to
drive his personal vehicle to tow the trailer in the Parade.
21. Defendant Glass was 20 years old when he struck and killed Hailey.
4
22. Prior to the Parade, Defendant Glass had no experience driving a vehicle
in parades or pulling a parade float.
23. Prior to the Parade, Defendant Glass had been cited for more than 20
traffic violations since 2021 – including 5 charges for failure to have his vehicles
inspected.
24. Defendant Glass came to Raleigh the night before the Parade and stayed
at a hotel.
25. Defendant Glass arrived at his hotel in Raleigh sometime after 1:00 am
and woke up no later than 5:30 am on the morning of the Parade.
26. Defendant Glass had less than 5 hours of sleep prior to driving in the
Parade.
27. Defendant Glass was joined in the vehicle by two males, one of whom
was twenty-one years old and the other who was twenty-two years old.
28. Defendant Glass and the other two occupants of the vehicle were all
illegally carrying handguns in the Parade.
29. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-4.01(3d), a “commercial motor vehicle”
is defined as a Class C motor vehicle that is used to transport 16 or more passengers,
including the driver.
30. In the Parade, the Truck operated by Defendant Glass was used to
transport 16 or more passengers.
5
31. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-37.12, “no person shall operate a
commercial motor vehicle on the highways of this State unless he has first been issued
and is in immediate possession of a commercial drivers license. . .”
32. Defendant Glass did not possess a commercial driver’s license.
33. Defendant Glass violated North Carolina law by transporting 16 or more
passengers in the Parade without a commercial driver’s license.
VEHICLE HISTORY
34. Defendant Glass was the owner of the 2011 GMC truck (the “Truck”)
that he drove in the Parade.
35. Upon information and belief, prior to the Parade, Defendant Glass
personally performed extensive work and modifications on the Truck.
36. Defendant Glass errantly put power steering fluid in the brake fluid
reservoir.
37. Defendant Glass did not hire an ASE certified mechanic to flush the
power steering fluid from the Truck’s braking system.
38. Instead, Defendant Glass attempted to flush the power steering fluid
from the braking system.
39. Defendant Glass did not hire an ASE certified mechanic to ascertain
whether any damage was caused by putting power steering fluid in the Truck’s brake
fluid reservoir.
40. Defendant Glass failed to properly flush the power steering fluid from
the braking system.
6
41. Upon information and belief, on the date of the Parade, power steering
fluid and other contaminants remained in the braking system.
42. Defendant Glass’s placement of power steering fluid in the brake fluid
reservoir caused damage to the Truck’s braking system.
43. Moreover, the Truck had numerous modifications, many of which
required significant expenditure of funds, with the sole purpose of said modifications
being the aesthetic appeal. Such modifications were either performed personally by
Defendant Glass, performed at the request of Defendant Glass, or contributed to
Defendant Glass’ decision to purchase the Truck.
44. The Truck was lifted using an after-market lift kit and was equipped
with after-market wheels that offset the tires outside the truck’s wheel wells by
approximately seven inches.
45. At the time of the Parade, the originally manufactured and installed
emergency brake line had been terminated.
46. Upon information and belief, the emergency brake line was terminated
because the originally manufactured emergency brake line was not long enough to fit
the Truck as modified by the installation of the lift kit on the Truck.
47. Prior to and at the time of the Parade, the emergency brake cable could
be seen disconnected and dangling beneath the driver’s side door of the Truck.
48. Prior to and at the time of the Parade, whenever Defendant Glass turned
on the Truck’s ignition, an indicator light appeared on the Truck’s dashboard telling
Defendant Glass that the Truck’s emergency brake was not functional.
7
49. Prior to and at the time of the Parade, Defendant Glass knew that the
emergency brake was not functional.
50. Prior to the Parade, Defendant Glass chose not to replace or repair the
emergency brake line or take any action to ensure that the Truck had a functioning
emergency brake.
51. When Defendant Glass was interviewed after the Parade, he admitted
that he knew the emergency brake was not functional prior to and at the time of the
Parade.
52. Prior to the Parade, Glass had been twice charged for failing to have the
Truck inspected.
53. On November 17, 2022, just two days before the Parade, Glass was
charged with failing to complete a Virginia state safety inspection for the Truck.
54. Glasses’ Truck could not pass a state safety inspection in Virginia or in
North Carolina because it lacked basic, required emergency safety equipment.
55. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-125:
(a) Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be

equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to
stop such vehicle or vehicles, and such brakes shall be maintained
in good working order and shall conform to regulations provided
in this section.
...
(c) Every motor vehicle when operated on a highway shall be

equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to
stop and hold such vehicle, and shall have all originally equipped
brakes in good working order, including two separate means of
applying the brakes. If these two separate means of applying the
brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that
8
failure of any one part of the operating mechanism shall not leave
the motor vehicle without brakes.
56. As of November 19, 2022, Glass knew that the Truck could not pass a
state safety inspection in Virginia because it lacked basic, required safety equipment.
57. Defendant Glasses’ operation of the Truck in the Parade without a
functional emergency brake was illegal.
58. Though the Truck had aesthetic appeal to Defendant Glass, the Truck
lacked a functional emergency brake, a critical safety feature.
59. Defendant Glasses’ operation of the Truck in the Parade without a
braking system adequate to control the movement of and to stop such vehicle or
vehicles was illegal.
60. Though the Truck had aesthetic appeal to Defendant Glass, the Truck
lacked a functional braking system, a critical safety feature.
61. Defendant Glass did not deem the Truck’s basic safety features as
important as the Truck’s aesthetic appeal.
62. Defendant Glass also equipped the Truck with a train horn so loud that
it is jarring to hear – even when the noise is anticipated.
63. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-125:
[E]very motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be

equipped with a horn in good working order capable of emitting
sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not
less than 200 feet, and it shall be unlawful, except as otherwise
provided in this section, for any vehicle to be equipped with or
for any person to use upon a vehicle any siren, compression or
spark plug whistle or for any person at any time to use a horn
otherwise than as a reasonable warning or to make any
9
unnecessary or unreasonable loud or harsh sound by means of a
horn or other warning device.
64. The train horn installed on the Truck is illegal in North Carolina.
65. Defendant Glass callously disregarded the life of Hailey and
compromised the safety of hundreds of children participating in the Parade and the
thousands of bystanders lining the streets by choosing to drive his Truck in the
Parade.
TRAILER HISTORY
66. Upon information and belief, the Trailer provided by Defendant D and
L Floats was manufactured in the 1950s.
67. Upon information and belief, Defendant D and L Floats owned the
Trailer at the time of the Parade.
68. The Trailer was a farm trailer that was not registered with the North
Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles at the time of the Parade.
69. The Trailer was not authorized to be utilized on a public highway except
for farm use.
70. The Trailer was not legally operated in the Parade.
71. The Trailer was not equipped with brakes.
72. The Trailer was unsafe and unsuitable to be towed behind hundreds of
children.
73. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-124(f):
Every . . . trailer . . .attached by a drawbar or coupling to a

towing vehicle, and having a gross weight of two tons . . .
shall be equipped with brakes controlled or operated by the
10
driver of the towing vehicle, which shall conform to the
specifications set forth in subsection (e) of this section and
shall be of a type approved by the Commissioner.
74. The Trailer was attached to a towing vehicle and had a gross weight,
when loaded with 29 children, of more than two tons (4,000 pounds).
75. Upon information and belief, the Trailer and many of the other trailers
utilized in the parade were decades old, unstable, had rotten wood, and improperly
inflated tires.
DEFENDANT CC & CO.’S DISREGARD OF ITS DANCERS’ SAFETY
76. Defendant CC & Co. participated in the Parade to promote and market
its dance studio.
77. Defendant D and L Floats granted authorization to Defendant CC & Co.
for a former CC & Co. student, Defendant Glass, to drive his personal vehicle to tow
the trailer.
78. Defendant CC & Co. engaged Defendant Glass to bring his personal
vehicle from Virginia to Raleigh to tow a trailer in the Parade.
79. Because, upon information and belief, Defendant D and L Floats charges
a fee for providing a tow vehicle and driver, Defendant CC & Co. hired Defendant
Glass to pull its float in order to save money.
80. Upon information and belief, Defendant CC & Co. either paid for
Defendant Glass’s hotel room, reimbursed Defendant Glass for his hotel room, or
intended to reimburse Defendant Glass for his hotel room the night before the
Parade.
11
81. Defendant D and L Floats delivered the trailer to Defendant CC & Co.
at CC & Co.’s business premises in advance of the Parade so that Defendant CC &
Co. could decorate the trailer, adorn it with signage, and utilize the trailer to
transport its dancers in the Parade.
82. On November 19, 2022, Defendant Glass drove the Truck to Defendant
CC & Co., picked up the Trailer, and drove it to the Parade staging area.
83. Leading up to the Parade, Defendant CC & Co. delivered many
communications to the parents of its students regarding their participation in the
Parade.
84. These communications sought to ensure that the students properly
represented Defendant CC & Co., that the students marketed the Defendant CC &
Co. brand effectively in the Parade, and that parents understood that they would be
charged extra if they were late in picking up students after the Parade.
85. None of the pre-Parade communications to parents of CC & Co. students
related to safety or emergency procedures.
86. Defendant CC & Co. insisted on using Defendant Glass as a driver using
the Truck to pull the Defendant CC & Co. float.
87. Prior to the Parade, Defendant CC & Co. knew that Defendant Glass
was 20 years old.
88. Prior to the Parade, Defendant CC & Co. knew that Defendant Glass
had limited driving experience.
12
89. Prior to the Parade, Defendant CC & Co. knew or should have known
that Defendant Glass had no experience pulling floats in a Parade.
that Defendant Glass had a lengthy history of traffic citations.
that Defendant Glass did not possess a commercial driver’s license.
92. Defendant CC & Co. failed to take any reasonable steps to properly vet
Defendant Glass’s suitability as the driver of Defendant CC & Co.’s float in the
Parade.
93. Defendant CC & Co. failed to provide any safety training or safety
materials to Defendant Glass as it related to the Parade.
94. Defendant CC & Co. failed to properly vet the Truck’s suitability to pull
the 29 children on the Defendant CC & Co. float.
95. Defendant CC & Co. did not perform any safety inspection of the Truck
prior to the Parade.
96. Defendant CC & Co. did not require proof of a current registration or
valid safety inspections for the Truck prior to the Parade.
97. Defendant CC & Co. failed to properly vet the Trailer that would pull
the 29 children on the Defendant CC & Co. float.
98. Defendant CC & Co. did not require proof of a current registration or
valid safety inspections for the Trailer prior to the Parade.
13
99. Defendant CC & Co. failed to develop or communicate an emergency
safety plan for participants, staff, volunteers, or parents.
100. Defendant CC & Co. did not provide sufficient staffing at the event to
ensure the safety of their students and to assist in the event of an emergency.
101. Defendant CC & Co. chose to place its students in front of the Truck and
Trailer while marching and dancing in the Parade.
102. Defendant CC & Co. failed to position its students behind the Truck and
Trailer – neither of which had functional brakes despite weighing over two tons.
103. Defendant CC & Co. did not properly train its staff and chaperones on
how to identify an emergency situation and react to save its imperiled students.
104. Defendant CC & Co. did not properly train its staff and chaperones or
provide proper equipment to ensure effective communication in the event of an
emergency.
105. Defendant CC & Co. made little or no effort to keep its students safe in
the Parade, and its actions and inactions constituted a proximate cause of Hailey’s
death.
106. Defendant CC & Co. relied on good Samaritans who came out of the
crowd of onlookers to try and save Defendant CC & Co.’s students.
107. Defendant CC & Co. was so disorganized and unprepared from a safety
perspective that its staff could not even determine Hailey’s identity after she was
struck and killed.
14
108. April Brooks was stationed at the end of the Parade with her other two
children, as Defendant CC & Co. instructed, where she received text messages
indicating Hailey’s group was safe.
109. When Wake EMS personnel transported Hailey to the hospital, they
classified her as a “Jane Doe.”
110. Trey Brooks responded to the pick-up area and asked multiple teachers
and a parent where Hailey was located, but no one knew where she was located.
111. Eventually, Trey was identified as the victim’s father and was taken to
the hospital.
GROSSLY NEGLIGENT PLANNING, SCREENING, AND OVERSIGHT
112. In 2013, after the tragic deaths of four individuals in a parade in Texas,
the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) adopted a report and
promulgated a series of critical recommendations to the public and, in particular,
those entities that conduct parades.
113. At that time, the NTSB made a number of recommendations designed
to prevent accidents and save lives – particularly as it relates to the safety of parade
participants and attendees.
114. Among the NTSB’s recommendations were that the following safety
protocols should be implemented for parades:
a. Safety plans that provide for lines of communication among event
participants;
b. The development of operating and emergency procedures;
15
c. A safety briefing for vehicle operators;
d. Risk mitigation and contingency planning with provisions for
communication among event participants and other stakeholders;
e. Safety briefings for event participants and other stakeholders;
f. Driver and vehicle screening; and
g. Safe float operation.
115. As a result of this 2013 tragedy and other parade tragedies,
municipalities, festival and event planners, and parade operators throughout the
country have adopted and enforced reasonable safety measures to prevent accidents
and save lives – particularly as it relates to the safety of parade participants and
attendees.
116. In choosing to operate a parade, a parade operator must take reasonable
safety measures to prevent accidents and save lives.
117. By choosing to operate a parade without taking reasonable, well-known,
published, and readily available safety measures, a parade operator is choosing to
put the lives of the parade’s participants and attendees at risk.
118. Prior to November 19, 2022, Defendant GRMA failed to create or adopt
necessary and appropriate guidelines, policies, or standard operating procedures for
the safe planning and operation of the Parade.
119. Defendants GRMA, D and L Floats, and CC & Co. failed to establish,
adopt and enforce an adequate written safety plan that provided for risk mitigation,
16
contingency planning, and communication among event participants in the event of
an emergency.
120. Defendants GRMA, D and L Floats, and CC & Co. failed to conduct
safety briefings for event participants and other stakeholders.
121. Defendants GRMA, D and L Floats, and CC & Co. failed to conduct due
diligence with regard to the suitability and safety of Defendant Glass as a driver in
the Parade.
122. Defendants GRMA, D and L Floats, and CC & Co. did not request any
information from Defendant Glass about his driving history or training prior to the
Parade, nor did they attempt to obtain said information by other means.
diligence with regard to the suitability and safety of the Truck for the purpose of
towing a float in the Parade.
information about the safety or suitability of the Truck for the Parade, nor did they
attempt to obtain said information by other means.
diligence with regard to the suitability and safety of the Trailer as a float in the
Parade.
information from any source about the safety or suitability of the Trailer for the
Parade, nor did they attempt to obtain said information by other means.
17
127. Defendants GRMA, D and L Floats, and CC & Co. failed to perform
reasonable inspections of the Truck or Trailer prior to the Parade.
STAGING THE PARADE
128. The Parade was staged with vehicles and floats lining up on both
Hillsborough Street (west of St. Mary’s Street) and St. Mary’s Street.
129. The floats then merged onto Hillsborough Street where the Parade
began and proceeded east on Hillsborough Street toward the North Carolina State
Capitol.
130. On November 19, 2022, before the Parade started, Defendant Glass
drove the Truck to CC & Co., picked up the Trailer, and towed it to the staging area.
131. While in the staging area, the floats were placed in order and were
gradually moved forward as the Parade commenced.
GLASS STRIKES AND KILLS HAILEY
132. Hailey began taking dance classes at Defendant CC & Co. in August
2022.
133. As a student at Defendant CC & Co., Hailey was asked to participate as
a dancer in the Parade.
134. Hailey was dancing in the Parade in formation with her fellow students
of Defendant CC & Co.
135. Defendant CC & Co. was playing loud music in front of the dance
formation.
18
136. Defendant CC & Co. instructed the students to follow the choreographed
routine and threatened to remove them from the Parade if they made mistakes.
137. The students were focused on their routine and performing as directed.
138. Defendant CC & Co. placed the students in formation in between two
CC & Co. floats pulled by Defendant Glass and his father, Christopher Glass.
139. Shortly after entering the Parade route on Hillsborough St. east of the
intersection with St. Mary’s St., Defendant Glass lost control of his vehicle.
140. When Defendant Glass lost control of his vehicle, he was traveling at a
slow rate of speed.
141. As Defendant Glass began to progress toward the group of children
between him and his father, he or one of his passengers repeatedly blew the train
horn on the Truck.
142. While the Truck moved downhill, Glass pulled the Truck around the
trailer pulled by his father and into a crowd of children. Hailey was among the
children participating as dancers in front of the Truck in the Parade.
143. After Defendant Glass lost control of the Truck, he attempted to apply
the emergency brake in order to stop the Truck.
144. The Truck’s emergency brake did not function because the emergency
brake line was not connected.
145. Glass did not swerve or attempt to avoid Hailey. He drove directly over
her.
19
146. Had Glasses’ Truck been equipped with an adequate braking system, he
could have stopped the Truck and avoided striking and killing Hailey.
147. Had Glasses’ Truck been equipped with an emergency brake, he could
have stopped the Truck and avoided striking and killing Hailey.
148. Had the Trailer been equipped with brakes, the Trailer would have
stopped the Truck and avoided striking and killing Hailey.
149. Upon information and belief, Glass’s visibility of Hailey was eliminated
or restricted due to the limited sight line created by the lift kit installed on the Truck.
150. The Truck was not equipped with crossover mirrors on the front to
eliminate the driver’s blind spot for children at the front of the vehicle.
151. Upon information and belief, if the Truck been equipped with crossover
mirrors, Defendant Glass could have seen Hailey and avoided striking and killing
her.
152. Upon information and belief, if the Truck did not have tires installed
that extended beyond the Truck’s wheel well, the Truck would not have struck or
killed Hailey.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence and Gross Negligence – Defendant Glass
153. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and in
paragraphs in subsequent sections are realleged and incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
20
154. Defendant Glass had a duty to Hailey and all other participants and
attendees at the Parade to ensure his Truck and the Trailer were properly equipped
so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and others.
attendees at the Parade to comply with State laws governing the safe operation of the
Truck and Trailer so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and others.
attendees at the Parade to ensure he was properly trained at operating the Truck and
towing the Trailer in the Parade so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and
others.
attendees at the Parade to safely operate with Truck and Trailer at the Parade so as
to not cause harm or death to Hailey and others.
attendees at the Parade to notify authorities and his employers that his Truck was
not safe or suitable for use in the Parade.
attendees at the Parade to possess a commercial driver’s license to pull a trailer
carrying 29 passengers.
160. Defendant Glass breached his duties to Hailey and was negligent and
grossly negligent in many ways, including but not limited to the following:
21
a. Defendant Glass drove his vehicle upon a highway or any public
vehicular area without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a
manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 20-140(b);
b. Defendant Glass unintentionally caused the death of Hailey while
engaged in the violation of a State law applying to the operation or use of a
vehicle or to the regulation of traffic under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141.4(a2);
c. Defendant Glass agreed to and did enter his Truck in the Parade
with the purpose of transporting 29 children, 10 years of age and younger, and
following closely behind dozens of other children and close to innocent
spectators with full knowledge that his emergency brakes were disconnected;
d. Defendant Glass agreed to and did enter his Truck in the Parade
spectators with full knowledge that his Truck could not pass a state safety
inspection;
e. Defendant Glass agreed to and did enter his Truck in the Parade
spectators with full knowledge that the Truck had not passed a required state
safety inspection;
f. Defendant Glass failed to keep the vehicle under proper control;
22
g. When Defendant Glass lost control of his vehicle, he was traveling
at a very slow rate of speed and rather than striking another trailer, he pulled
around it and into a crowd of children dancing in the Parade;
h. Defendant Glass failed to keep a proper lookout when operating
his Truck and ran directly over Hailey without swerving or making any
attempt to avoid her;
i. Defendant Glass’s Truck was modified in such a way that he could
not see objects or children directly in front of his vehicle – namely Hailey;
j. Defendant Glass’s Truck was modified to remove critical safety
features that could have prevented Hailey’s death – such as the emergency
brake;
k. Defendant Glass knew that the emergency brake on the Truck
was not functional before he struck and killed Hailey;
l. Defendant Glass mistakenly placed power steering fluid in the
brake fluid reservoir of the Truck, failed to ensure that the power steering fluid
was properly flushed from the Truck’s braking system, and failed to prevent
and/or repair damage to the Truck’s braking system resulting from the
presence of power steering fluid;
m. Defendant Glass had been cited for failure to have the Truck
inspected two times before he struck Hailey – most recently, only two days
before Defendant Glass struck and killed Hailey;
23
n. Defendant Glass knew that his Truck could not pass a state
inspection without a functional emergency brake;
o. Defendant Glass’s Truck was modified to add an illegal, ear-
piercing train horn that was reasonably anticipated to startle any person with
normal hearing, especially a child;
p. Defendant Glass knew that the Trailer did not have functional
brakes before he struck and killed Hailey;
q. Defendant Glass failed to ensure that the Truck and Trailer were
equipped with proper safety equipment that could have prevented Hailey’s
death – such as the emergency brake on the Truck and brakes on the Trailer;
r. Defendant Glass failed to exercise reasonable care in the
operation of a motor vehicle;
s. Defendant Glass failed to exercise reasonable care in the towing
of a trailer holding 29 children;
t. Defendant Glass failed to possess the skills, knowledge, and
training necessary to operate the Truck and Trailer in the Parade, yet still
agreed to take on this job;
u. Defendant Glass drove the Truck and pulled the Trailer in the
Parade without a commercial driver’s license;
v. Defendant Glass drove the Truck in the Parade behind Hailey
and the other dancers and close to hundreds of attendees of the Parade,
knowing that installation of a lift kit on the Truck adversely impacted the
24
braking system of the Truck, and without making certain that upgraded
braking capabilities had been installed on the Truck to counter the degradation
of the braking system resulting from the installation of the lift kit;
w. Defendant Glass drove the Truck in the Parade behind Hailey
and the other dancers and close to hundreds of attendees of the Parade,
knowing that installation of a lift kit in the Truck decreased the handling
ability of the Truck;
x. Defendant Glass drove the Truck and pulled the Trailer in the
Parade behind Hailey and the other dancers and close to hundreds of attendees
of the Parade, knowing that towing with a lifted truck can be unstable and
cause sagging, thereby making handling of the Trailer unpredictable and
dangerous; and
y. Defendant Glass was negligent in other respects as will be
learned in discovery and proven at the trial of this case.
161. The above-referenced violations of public safety statutes, ordinances,
and regulations constitute negligence per se by the defendants.
162. The above-referenced acts of negligence constitute willful or wanton
conduct by the defendant which display a conscious and intentional disregard of and
indifference to the rights and safety of others, which the defendant knew was
reasonably likely to result in injury, damage, or death, and constitutes grossly
negligent conduct by the defendant.
25
163. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and grossly negligent
actions and inactions of the defendant as set forth above, Hailey suffered severe and
painful injuries, incurred expenses, for care, treatment, and hospitalization, and died.
164. Trey Brooks and April Brooks are entitled to recover in their capacity as
Administrators of the Estate of Hailey from all defendants, jointly and severally, all
damages caused by their negligence and gross negligence, including all damages as
set forth in N.C.G.S. §28A-18-2, and in an amount in excess of $25,000.00.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Wrongful Death – Defendant Glass
166. The acts and inactions of Defendant Glass directly and proximately
caused the wrongful death of the decedent, Hailey.
167. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful death of Hailey, her
heirs at law have been deprived of the benefit of Hailey in their lives. The decedent’s
heirs at law are entitled to recover from the defendants all damages caused by the
defendants’ negligence, including all such damages as are allowed by N.C.G.S. §28A-
18-2, including:
a. Expenses for care, treatment, and hospitalization incident to the
injury resulting in death;
b. Compensation for pain and suffering of the decedent;
c. The reasonable funeral expenses of the decedent;
26
d. The present monetary value of the decedent to the persons
entitled to receive the damages recovered, including but not limited to
compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected:
i. Net income of the decedent;
ii. Services, protection, care, and assistance of the decedent,
whether voluntary or obligatory, to the persons entitled to the damages
recovered; and
iii. Society, companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices
and advice of the decedent to the persons entitled to the damages
recovered.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence and Gross Negligence – Defendant CC & Co.
170. Defendant CC & Co. had a duty to Hailey and all other attendees at the
Parade to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its students from foreseeable
risks of their participation in the Parade.
27
171. Defendant CC & Co. had a duty to Hailey and all other participants and
attendees at the Parade to ensure that the driver of the vehicle pulling the CC & Co.
float was competent, properly trained, skilled, and properly equipped so as to not
cause harm or death to Hailey and the others.
attendees at the Parade to ensure that the Truck and the Trailer were safe and
properly equipped so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and the others.
attendees at the Parade to comply with State laws governing the driver and the safe
operation of the Truck and Trailer so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and the
others.
attendees at the Parade to safely operate the Truck and Trailer at the Parade so as
to not cause harm or death to Hailey and the others.
175. Defendant CC & Co. breached its duties to Hailey and was negligent and
a. Defendant CC & Co. negligently selected, hired, and retained
Defendant Glass to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
b. Defendant CC & Co. failed to properly vet Defendant Glass or
take reasonable steps to investigate his driving history and suitability to pull
the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
28
c. Defendant CC & Co. failed to ensure that Defendant Glass had
the proper class of license to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
d. Defendant CC & Co. failed to properly train Defendant Glass on
the safe operation of a vehicle and trailer in a Parade;
e. Defendant CC & Co. failed to properly train Defendant Glass on
how to respond during an emergency while pulling the CC & Co. float in the
Parade;
f. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding the selection, hiring, and retention of a driver
pulling the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
g. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding the safe operation of a vehicle and trailer pulling the
CC & Co. float in the Parade;
h. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding risk mitigation and emergency response as it relates
to the safe operation of a vehicle and trailer pulling the CC & Co. float in the
Parade;
i. Defendant CC & Co. negligently selected the Truck utilized to
pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
j. Defendant CC & Co. failed to properly vet the Truck or take
reasonable steps to investigate and inspect the safety and suitability of the
Truck to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
29
k. Defendant CC & Co. failed to ensure that the Truck had the
proper safety features needed to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade,
including a functional emergency brake;
l. Defendant CC & Co. failed to ensure the Truck was properly
registered and had passed safety inspections prior to being used in the Parade;
m. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding the selection of the Truck pulling the CC & Co. float
in the Parade;
n. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding the safe operation of the Truck pulling the CC & Co.
float in the Parade;
o. Defendant CC & Co. negligently permitted the use of the Trailer
without brakes for the CC & Co. float;
p. Defendant CC & Co. failed to properly vet the Trailer or take
Trailer to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
q. Defendant CC & Co. failed to ensure that the Trailer had the
proper safety features needed to be safely operated in the Parade;
r. Defendant CC & Co. failed to ensure the Trailer was properly
30
s. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding the selection and use of the Trailer pulling the CC
& Co. float in the Parade;
t. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding the safe operation of the Truck pulling the CC & Co.
u. Defendant CC & Co. failed to ensure that the Truck and Trailer
had basic safety features, including a functional emergency brake and
functional braking system, needed to safely transport children on its float and
to prevent harm to its student dancing in the Parade;
v. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adopt and enforce safety policies
and procedures regarding the placement of its students directly in front of the
Truck and Trailer without safety protocols to ensure the safety of these
children who were asked to perform with their backs turned to the Truck and
Trailer in a very loud environment;
w. Defendant CC & Co. failed to provide sufficient staff and
chaperones to ensure the safety of their students and to protect the students
in the event of an emergency;
x. Defendant CC & Co. failed to adequately supervise the Parade;
y. Defendant CC & Co. allowed Defendant Glass to drive the Truck
in the Parade when it knew or should have known that the Truck had a lift kit
installed that adversely impacted the braking system;
31
z. Defendant CC & Co. allowed Defendant Glass to drive the Truck
installed that adversely impacted the handling of the Truck;
aa. Defendant CC & Co. allowed Defendant Glass to drive the Truck
installed that could cause sagging when towing the Trailer, adversely
impacting the stability of the truck and making the handling of the Trailer
unpredictable and dangerous;
bb. Defendant CC & Co. failed to provide sufficient staff to effectively
respond in the event of an emergency; and
cc. Defendant CC & Co. was negligent in other respects as will be
177. At all relevant times, the employees and agents of Defendant CC & Co.
acted within the course and scope of their employment by Defendant CC & Co.
178. At all relevant times, the actions and inactions of all employees and
agents of Defendant CC & Co. are attributable to Defendant CC & Co. under
principles of agency and vicarious liability.
conduct by Defendant CC & Co., display a conscious and intentional disregard of and
indifference to the rights and safety of others, which Defendant CC & Co. knew was
32
negligent conduct by the defendants.
actions and inactions of the defendants as set forth above, Hailey suffered severe and
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Wrongful Death – Defendant CC & Co.
183. The acts and inactions of Defendant CC & Co. directly and proximately
18-2, including:
33
recovered; and
recovered.
Administrators of the Estate of Hailey Brooks from all defendants, jointly and
severally, all damages caused by their negligence and gross negligence, including all
damages as set forth in N.C.G.S. §28A-18-2, and in an amount in excess of $25,000.00.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence and Gross Negligence – Defendant GRMA
187. Defendant GRMA had a duty to ensure that the Parade is operated in a
safe manner that protects the health and safety of participants and spectators.
34
188. Defendant GRMA had a duty to adopt and enforce policies and
procedures to operate a safe Parade without endangering participants or spectators.
189. Defendant GRMA had a duty to adopt and enforce policies and
procedures to ensure that all motor vehicles operated in the Parade could be operated
in a safe manner to protect the health and safety of participants and spectators.
190. Defendant GRMA had a duty to ensure that all motor vehicles operated
in the Parade passed the state motor vehicle safety inspection of the state in which
the vehicle was titled.
in the Parade met the requirements of the North Carolina motor vehicle safety
inspection.
in the Parade maintained properly functioning braking systems, including both the
foot brake and the emergency or parking brake.
193. Defendant GRMA had a duty to ensure that all motor vehicles pulling a
float in the Parade possess the features and attributes necessary to safely pull a float
without endangering participants or spectators.
194. Defendant GRMA had a duty to Hailey and all other attendees at the
Parade to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the Parade’s participants from
foreseeable risks of their participation in the Parade.
195. Defendant GRMA had a duty to Hailey and all other participants and
attendees at the Parade to ensure that the driver of the Truck was competent,
35
properly trained, skilled, and properly equipped so as to not cause harm or death to
Hailey and others.
attendees at the Parade to ensure that the Truck and the Trailer were safe and
properly equipped so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and others.
197. Defendant GRMA had a duty to conduct a safety inspection prior to the
Parade of any vehicle pulling a float in the Parade.
attendees at the Parade to comply with State laws governing the driver and the safe
operation of the Truck and Trailer so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and
others.
199. Defendant GRMA breached its duties to Hailey and was negligent and
a. Defendant GRMA failed to properly vet Defendant Glass or take
reasonable steps to investigate his driving history and suitability to pull the
b. Defendant GRMA failed to ensure that Defendant Glass had the
proper class of license to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
c. Defendant GRMA failed to ensure that Defendant Glass was
properly trained on the safe operation of the Truck and Trailer in the Parade;
36
d. Defendant GRMA failed to ensure that Defendant Glass was
properly trained on how to respond during an emergency while putting the CC
& Co. float in the Parade;
e. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding the selection, hiring, and retention of the driver pulling
a CC & Co. float in the Parade;
f. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding the safe operation of the Truck and Trailer;
g. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding risk mitigation and emergency response as it relates to
the safe operation of the Truck and Trailer;
h. Defendant GRMA failed to properly vet the Truck or take
i. Defendant GRMA failed to ensure that the Truck had the proper
safety features needed to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
j. Defendant GRMA to ensure the Truck was properly registered
and had passed safety inspections prior to being used in the Parade;
k. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding the selection of the Truck pulling the CC & Co. float in
the Parade;
37
l. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding the safe operation of the Truck pulling the CC & Co. float
in the Parade;
m. Defendant GRMA negligently permitted the use of the Trailer
without brakes to be used for the CC & Co. float;
n. Defendant GRMA failed to properly vet the Trailer or take
Trailer to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
o. Defendant GRMA failed to ensure that the Trailer had the proper
safety features needed to be safely operated in the Parade;
p. Defendant GRMA failed to ensure the Trailer was properly
q. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding the selection and use of the Trailer pulling the CC & Co.
r. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding the safe operation of the Trailer pulling the CC & Co.
s. Defendant GRMA failed to ensure that the Truck and Trailer had
basic safety features, including a functional emergency brake and functional
braking system, needed to safely transport children on the CC & Co. float and
to prevent harm to the participants in the Parade;
38
t. Defendant GRMA failed to adopt and enforce safety policies and
procedures regarding the placement of parade participants directly in front of
the Truck and Trailer without safety protocols to ensure the safety of these
children who were asked to perform with their backs turned to the Truck and
Trailer in a very loud environment;
u. Defendant GRMA failed to provide sufficient staff to ensure the
safety of the participants and to protect the participants in the event of an
emergency;
v. Defendant GRMA failed to adequately supervise the Parade;
w. Defendant GRMA failed to provide sufficient staff and security
resources to effectively respond in the event of an emergency; and
x. Defendant GRMA was negligent in other respects as will be
201. At all relevant times, the employees and agents of Defendant GRMA
were acting within the course and scope of their employment by Defendant GRMA.
agents of Defendant GRMA are attributable to Defendant GRMA under principles of
agency and vicarious liability.
conduct by Defendant GRMA, display a conscious and intentional disregard of and
39
indifference to the rights and safety of others, which Defendant GRMA knew was
negligent conduct by the defendants.
painful injuries, incurred expenses, for care, treatment, and hospitalization, and
died..
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Wrongful Death – Defendant GRMA
207. The acts and inactions of Defendant GRMA directly and proximately
18-2, including:
40
recovered; and
recovered.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence and Gross Negligence – Defendant D and L Floats
41
211. Defendant D and L Floats had a duty to ensure that the driver, Truck,
and Trailer provided for the Parade were operated in a safe manner that protects the
health and safety of participants and spectators.
212. Defendant D and L Floats had a duty to adopt and enforce policies and
procedures to ensure that the driver, Truck, and Trailer provided for the Parade were
operated in a safe manner without endangering participants or spectators.
213. Defendant D and L Floats had a duty to Hailey and all other attendees
at the Parade to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the Parade’s
participants from foreseeable risks of their participation in the Parade.
214. Defendant D and L Floats had a duty to Hailey and all other participants
and attendees at the Parade to ensure that the driver of the Truck pulling its Trailer
was competent, properly trained, skilled, and properly equipped so as to not cause
harm or death to Hailey and the others.
and attendees at the Parade to ensure that the driver of the Truck pulling its Trailer
possessed the required class of license to do so.
and attendees at the Parade to ensure that the Truck pulling its Trailer and the
Trailer itself were safe and properly equipped so as to not cause harm or death to
Hailey and others.
and attendees at the Parade to comply with State laws governing the driver and the
42
safe operation of the Truck and Trailer so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey
and others.
and attendees at the Parade to ensure the safe operation of with Truck and Trailer
at the Parade so as to not cause harm or death to Hailey and others.
and attendees at the Parade to ensure that the Trailer it provided for the Parade was
properly registered and approved for use on a public highway.
220. Defendant D and L Floats knew that the Trailer would be pulled in the
Parade with minor children on the Trailer as passengers.
221. Defendant D and L Floats knew that the Trailer would be pulled in the
Parade behind hundreds of children participating in the Parade.
222. Defendant D and L Floats breached its duties to Hailey and was
negligent and grossly negligent in many ways, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Defendant D and L Floats failed to properly vet Defendant Glass
or take reasonable steps to investigate his driving history and suitability to
pull its Trailer to be utilized by Defendant CC & Co. as a float in the Parade;
b. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure that its Trailer was
operated by a competent, properly trained, skilled, and properly equipped
driver;
43
c. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure that Defendant Glass
had the proper class of license to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
d. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure that Defendant Glass
was properly trained on the safe operation of the Truck and Trailer in the
Parade;
e. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure that Defendant Glass
was properly trained on how to respond during an emergency while pulling the
f. Defendant D and L Floats failed to adopt and enforce safety
policies and procedures regarding the selection, hiring, and retention of the
driver pulling the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
g. Defendant D and L Floats failed to adopt and enforce safety
policies and procedures regarding the safe operation of the Truck and Trailer
pulling the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
h. Defendant D and L Floats failed to adopt and enforce safety
policies and procedures regarding risk mitigation and emergency response as
it relates to the safe operation of the Truck and Trailer pulling the CC & Co.
i. Defendant D and L Floats failed to properly vet the Truck or take
44
j. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure that the Truck had the
proper safety features needed to pull the CC & Co. float in the Parade;
k. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure the Truck was properly
registered, and had passed safety inspections prior to being used in the Parade;
l. Defendant D and L Floats failed to adopt and enforce safety
policies and procedures regarding the selection of the Truck pulling the CC &
Co. float in the Parade;
m. Defendant D and L Floats failed to adopt and enforce safety
policies and procedures regarding the safe operation of the Truck pulling the
n. Defendant D and L Floats allowed a modified Truck to pull its
Trailer, knowing that installation of a lift kit on the Truck adversely impacted
the braking system of the Truck, and without making certain that upgraded
braking capabilities had been installed on the Truck to counter the degradation
of the braking system resulting from the installation of the lift kit;
o. Defendant D and L Floats allowed a modified Truck to pull its
Trailer, knowing that installation of a lift kit in the Truck decreased the
handling ability of the Truck;
p. Defendant D and L Floats allowed a modified Truck to pull its
Trailer, knowing that towing with a lifted truck can be unstable and cause
sagging, thereby making handling of the Trailer unpredictable and dangerous;
45
q. Defendant D and L Floats negligently provided a Trailer without
brakes to be used for the CC & Co. float;
r. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure that the Trailer had
the proper safety features needed to be safely operated in the Parade;
s. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure the Trailer was
properly registered and had passed safety inspections prior to being used in
the Parade;
t. Defendant D and L Floats failed to adopt and enforce safety
policies and procedures regarding the selection and use of the vehicle used to
tow the Trailer in the Parade;
u. Defendant D and L Floats failed to ensure that the Truck and
Trailer had basic safety features – namely brakes – needed to safely transport
children on the CC & Co. float and to prevent harm to the participants in the
Parade;
v. Defendant D and L Floats failed to adequately supervise the
operation of its Trailer in the Parade; and
w. Defendant D and L Floats was negligent in other respects as will
be learned in discovery and proven at the trial of this case.
46
224. At all relevant times, the employees and agents of Defendant D and L
Floats were acting within the course and scope of their employment by Defendant D
and L Floats.
agents of Defendant D and L Floats are attributable to Defendant D and L Floats
under principles of agency and vicarious liability.
conduct by Defendant D and L Floats, display a conscious and intentional disregard
of and indifference to the rights and safety of others, which Defendant D and L Floats
knew was reasonably likely to result in injury, damage, or death, and constitutes
grossly negligent conduct by the defendants.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Wrongful Death – Defendant D and L Floats
47
230. The acts and inactions of Defendant D and L Floats directly and
proximately caused the wrongful death of the decedent, Hailey.
18-2, including:
recovered; and
recovered.
48
NINETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Vicarious Liability – Defendant CC & Co.
234. While D and L Floats typically identifies, screens, and hires its own
drivers for its floats, Defendant CC & Co. requested that Defendant Glass use his
Truck to tow the CC & Co. Float in the Parade.
235. By selecting Defendant Glass and requesting that he be permitted to
pull its float, Defendant CC & Co. hired, employed, and authorized Defendant Glass
to act on its behalf in pulling the CC & Co. Float in the Parade.
236. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant CC & Co. controlled the
manner and means of Defendant Glass pulling the CC & Co. float in the Parade.
237. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Glass was acting in the course
and scope of his engagement with Defendant CC & Co.
238. Defendant Glass’s actions or inactions were in furtherance of Defendant
CC & Co. purpose of pulling its float in the Parade, incident to the performance of the
duties Defendant CC & Co. entrusted to him, and were intended to accomplish
Defendant CC & Co.’s purpose of participating in the Parade.
49
239. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Glass was acting as an agent
of Defendant CC & Co.
240. As a result, the actions and inactions of Defendant Glass, as described
herein, are imputed to his principal, Defendant CC & Co., under the doctrine of
respondeat superior and through the principles of agency and/or apparent agency,
and Defendant CC & Co. is estopped from denying said agency.
241. It was foreseeable that Defendant Glass, who was 20 years old with an
extensive record of traffic violations including a failure to possess a valid inspection
on his Truck only two days prior, and was driving a vehicle without a functional
emergency brake or an otherwise functional braking system, and whose Truck was
modified in a manner that limited his visibility – particularly as it relates to children
that would be in close proximity to the front of his vehicle, and who was illegally
carrying a loaded weapon in the Parade, would present a danger of death or serious
harm to CC & Co.’s dance students, who CC & Co. placed in harm’s way.
actions and inactions of Defendant Glass as set forth above, Hailey suffered severe
and painful injuries, incurred expenses, for care, treatment, and hospitalization, and
died.
243. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Glasses’ negligence and
gross negligence, for which Defendant CC & Co.is vicariously liable, Hailey was
wrongfully killed and, her heirs at law have been deprived of the benefit of enjoying
Hailey in their lives. The decedent’s heirs at law are entitled to recover from
50
Defendant CC & Co. all damages caused by the Defendant Glasses’ negligence and
gross negligence, including all such damages as are allowed by N.C.G.S. §28A-18-2,
including:
recovered; and
recovered.
51
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Vicarious Liability and Agency – Defendant D and L Floats
246. Upon information and belief, Defendant D and L Floats was
contractually obligated to provide a driver, Trailer, and a truck to pull its Trailer in
the Parade.
247. By authorizing Defendant Glass to tow its Trailer, Defendant D and L
Floats authorized Defendant Glass to carry out its contractual obligations.
248. Defendant Glass’s actions or inactions were in furtherance of Defendant
D and L Floats’ contractual obligations, incident to the performance of the duties
Defendant D and L Floats entrusted to him, and were intended to accomplish D and
L Floats’ contractual obligations.
249. Defendant Glass acted in the course and scope of the authority given to
him by Defendant D and L Floats.
250. As a result, Defendant D and L Floats is liable for the actions and
inactions of Defendant Glass under the principles of agency and is estopped from
denying said agency.
251. Moreover, driving a vehicle and towing a trailer containing 29 children
immediately behind dozens of children in a parade attended by tens of thousands of
spectators carries with it a substantial danger inherent to the work itself.
52
252. There are recognizable and substantial risks in undertaking such an
endeavor.
253. Driving a vehicle and towing a trailer containing 29 children
immediately behind hundreds of children in a parade attended by tens of thousands
of spectators is an inherently dangerous activity.
254. Driving a vehicle and towing a trailer full of children in the Parade can
be performed safely when reasonable precautions are taken, but serious injury and
even death can and will occur in the nature course of events if these precautions are
not taken.
255. Defendant D and L Floats knew or should have known that these
activities were inherently dangerous to the general public.
256. Defendant D and L Floats had a continuing duty to exercise ordinary
care to ensure that reasonable safety precautions were taken to protect Hailey and
the public.
257. These contractual obligations were non-delegable – even where
Defendant D and L Floats allowed a third-party, Defendant CC & Co., to employ
Defendant Glass as the driver and to utilize Defendant Glass’ Truck to tow its Trailer.
258. It was foreseeable that Defendant Glass, who was 20 years old with an
extensive record of traffic violations including a failure to possess a valid inspection
on his Truck only two days prior, and was driving a vehicle without a functional
emergency brake or an otherwise functional braking system, and who had modified
his Truck himself in a manner that limited his visibility – particularly as it relates to
53
children that would be in close proximity to the front of his vehicle, and who was
illegally carrying a loaded weapon in the Parade, would present a danger of death or
serious harm to Hailey and other Parade participants.
259. Defendant D and L Floats failed to take reasonable safety precautions
and failed to ensure Defendant CC & Co. and Defendant Glass took reasonable safety
precautions in carrying out these inherently dangerous activities.
260. Since the activities contractually undertaken by Defendant D and L
Floats were inherently dangerous and non-delegable and Defendant D and L Floats
failed to take reasonable safety precautions and failed to ensure Defendant CC & Co.
and Defendant Glass took reasonable safety precautions, the negligent and grossly
negligent actions and inactions of Defendant Glass as set forth above are imputed to
Defendant D and L Floats.
261. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant D and L Float’s failures,
Hailey suffered severe and painful injuries, incurred expenses, for care, treatment,
and hospitalization, and died.
263. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant D and L Float’s failures,
Hailey was wrongfully killed and, her heirs at law have been deprived of the benefit
of enjoying Hailey in their lives. The decedent’s heirs at law are entitled to recover
54
from Defendant D and L Floats all damages caused by the Defendant Glasses’
negligence and gross negligence, including all such damages as are allowed by
N.C.G.S. §28A-18-2, including:
recovered; and
recovered.
55
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray the Court for relief as follows:
1. That Plaintiffs have and recover judgment for compensatory damages
against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial,
in excess of $25,000.00, plus pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
2. That Plaintiffs have and recover judgment for punitive damages against
all Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, in excess
of $25,000.00,
3. That Defendants be taxed with the cost of this action;
4. That this action be tried by a jury on all issues so triable; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
This the 14th day of April, 2023.
MILLER MONROE & PLYLER, PLLC
BY: /s/ Jason A. Miller

JASON A. MILLER,
N.C. State Bar No.: 39923
JEFFREY R. MONROE,
WILLIAM W. PLYLER,
1520 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27608
Telephone: 919-809-7346
Facsimile: 919-516-0062
jmiller@millermonroe.com
wplyler@millermonroe.com
jmonroe@millermonroe.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
56

23CV008736-910 - Complaint - Finalpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

23CV008736-910 - Complaint - Finalpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE ESTATE OF HAILEY KAYE

LANDEN CHRISTOPHER GLASS,

(“April Brooks”), by and through undersigned counsel, complaining of Defendant

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Hailey Kaye Brooks (“Hailey”) was a resident of Creedmoor, Granville

2. Hailey was 11 years old when she died.

had she any children.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Landen Christopher Glass

(hereinafter “Defendant Glass”) is a resident of Goode, Bedford County, Virginia.

6. Defendant CC & Co. Dance Complex, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant CC &

Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina.

7. Defendant Greater Raleigh Merchants Association, Inc. (hereinafter

Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina.

8. Defendant D and L Floats, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant D and L

Chambers Road, Rougemont, Durham County, North Carolina.

9. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over all Defendants by virtue

of, inter alia, North Carolina General Statutes §1-75.4.

§§7A-240 and 7A-243.

12. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-82, Wake County is an appropriate

venue for this lawsuit.

THE RALEIGH CHRISTMAS PARADE

Raleigh Christmas Parade through downtown Raleigh.

shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Parade.”

organizations that were permitted to participate in the Parade.

16. Defendant GRMA contracted with Defendant D and L Floats to provide

17. Defendant CC & Co. operates a dance studio in Raleigh.

permission by Defendant GRMA to participate in the Parade.

pull its trailers in the Raleigh Christmas Parade.

20. In this instance, Defendant CC & Co. requested authorization from

drive his personal vehicle to tow the trailer in the Parade.

in parades or pulling a parade float.

and woke up no later than 5:30 am on the morning of the Parade.

illegally carrying handguns in the Parade.

29. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-4.01(3d), a “commercial motor vehicle”

is defined as a Class C motor vehicle that is used to transport 16 or more passengers,

including the driver.

transport 16 or more passengers.

and is in immediate possession of a commercial drivers license. . .”

32. Defendant Glass did not possess a commercial driver’s license.

33. Defendant Glass violated North Carolina law by transporting 16 or more

passengers in the Parade without a commercial driver’s license.

that he drove in the Parade.

personally performed extensive work and modifications on the Truck.

power steering fluid from the Truck’s braking system.

from the braking system.

the braking system.

fluid and other contaminants remained in the braking system.

reservoir caused damage to the Truck’s braking system.

43. Moreover, the Truck had numerous modifications, many of which

Defendant Glass, performed at the request of Defendant Glass, or contributed to

Defendant Glass’ decision to purchase the Truck.

approximately seven inches.

emergency brake line had been terminated.

emergency brake was not functional.

North Carolina because it lacked basic, required emergency safety equipment.

55. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-125:

(a) Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be

(c) Every motor vehicle when operated on a highway shall be

57. Defendant Glasses’ operation of the Truck in the Parade without a

functional emergency brake was illegal.

lacked a functional emergency brake, a critical safety feature.

59. Defendant Glasses’ operation of the Truck in the Parade without a