Roumillat V Lyft

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Oct 26 1:52 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP1004910
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

) FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF CHARLESTON )
) CASE NUMBER: 2021-CP-10-______
Cyndee Roumillat, as Personal )
Representative for the Estate of )
Landon Antoine Dias, )
) SUMMONS
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Johnathan J. Wright; Lyft, Inc.; )
Lyft Drives South Carolina, Inc.; )
Jamie Sanchez Rios; John Doe )
Airbnb Renter; the Pilcher Living )
Trust; Robert B. Pilcher; John Doe )
Property Owner; Jane Doe Property )
Owner; Doe Property Manager; and )
Doe Property Management Co. )
)
Defendants. )
)
TO: THE DEFENDANT ABOVE-NAMED:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED AND REQUIRED to Answer the Complaint in this
action, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer on the
subscribers at their office located at 3 Morris Street, Suite A, Post Office Box 21624, Charleston,
South Carolina, 29413, within thirty (30) days of the service, exclusive of the day of such service;
and if you fail to answer the Complaint within this time, the Plaintiff will move for entry of Default
Judgment and apply to the Court for the relief sought therein.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
1
MCLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
3 Morris Street, Suite A
PO Box 21624
Charleston, South Carolina 29413
P: 843-277-6655 F: 843-277-6660
Michael Thomas Cooper, Bar No. 100053

W. Mullins McLeod, Jr., Bar No. 14148
AND
______________________________
Alex Apostolou, Bar No. 72190
Apostolou Law Firm
3443 Rivers Ave.
North Charleston, SC 29405
P: 843-853-3637
Attorneys for the Plaintiff

October 26, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina
2
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
) FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF CHARLESTON )
) CASE NUMBER: 2021-CP-10-______
Cyndee Roumillat, as Personal )
Representative for the Estate of )
Landon Antoine Dias, )
) COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, ) (Jury Trial Demanded)
)
v. )
)
Johnathan J. Wright; Lyft, Inc.; )
Lyft Drives South Carolina, Inc.; )
Jamie Sanchez Rios; John Doe )
Airbnb Renter; the Pilcher Living )
Trust; Robert B. Pilcher; John Doe )
Property Owner; Jane Doe Property )
Owner; Doe Property Manager; and )
Doe Property Management Co. )
)
Defendants. )
)
INTRODUCTION
The present wrongful death and survival action arises out of the tragic and untimely death
of Landon Dias at the age of only nineteen years. As will be set forth more fully below, Landon
attended a party where alcohol was served, drank, became intoxicated, and then was hit as a
pedestrian by a car being driven for Lyft. Landon’s death was the direct and proximate result of
the alcohol that was illegally served and the negligent and/or reckless driving of the Lyft. The
Plaintiff Cyndee Roumillat, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Landon Antoine Dias,
deceased, by and through her undersigned attorneys, complaining of the Defendants would allege
and show unto the Court the following:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The Decedent was a citizen and resident of Charleston County, State of South Carolina.
The Plaintiff, Cyndee Roumillat, the duly appointed Personal Representative of the Decedent’s
3
Estate, is a resident of Charleston County, South Carolina and has authority to bring this wrongful
death action on behalf of Decedent’s beneficiaries under the South Carolina Wrongful Death Act,
S.C. Code § 15-51-10 et seq. and to bring this survival action on behalf of the Decedent’s Estate
under S.C. Code § 15-5-90. The Certificate of Appointment is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
2. Defendant Johnathan J. Wright (hereinafter “Wright” or “Defendant Wright”) is a citizen
and resident of Charleston County, South Carolina. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Wright
was a driver-for-hire, employed by and working for Lyft, Inc. and/or Lyft Drives South Carolina,
Inc., to provide transportation services throughout the Charleston area. At all times relevant
herein, Defendant Wright was the agent and/or apparent agent of Lyft, Inc. and/or Lyft Drives
South Carolina, Inc.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lyft, Inc. was and is a foreign corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware and is authorized to transact business in South Carolina and
was at all times relevant herein engaged in substantial business in Charleston County.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lyft Drives South Carolina, Inc. was and is a
foreign corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and is authorized to transact business in
South Carolina and was at all times relevant herein engaged in substantial business in Charleston
County.
5. Upon information and belief, at all material times, Defendants Lyft, Inc. and Lyft Drives
South Carolina, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as '"Lyft Defendants" or "Lyft") have
maintained and continue to maintain a registered agent in South Carolina. The Lyft Defendants
maintain the same Registered Agent in South Carolina.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jamie Sanchez Rios (hereinafter “Defendant
Rios” or “Rios”) was and is a resident of Charleston County, South Carolina. Upon information
4
and belief, Defendant Rios hosted a sweet-sixteen birthday party for her child and served alcoholic
beverages to the child’s underage (under 21 years) friends and acquaintances that attended the
birthday party.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant John Doe Airbnb Renter is the boyfriend/ partner
of Defendant Rios and is a resident of Charleston County, South Carolina. Plaintiff believes, in
conjunction with or in the alternative, John Doe Airbnb Renter, rented the subject property and/or
procured alcoholic beverages to serve to the children that attended the party that was held at the
subject property. This Defendant’s legal name is unknown as of the filing of the present civil
action.
8. Upon information and belief, the underage drinking took place at 1208 E. Ashley Ave.,
Folly Beach, South Carolina. The subject property is maintained as a rental, and more specifically
as short-term-rental. The rental property is owned by the Pilcher Living Trust. Upon information
and belief, the beneficiaries of the Pilcher Living Trust are Robert B. Pilcher, John Doe Property
Owner, and Jane Doe Property Owner. Each of these Defendants resides in Charleston County,
South Carolina, upon information and belief. These Defendants are referred to collectively as
“Property Owner Defendants.”
9. Upon information and belief, the subject property is managed by Doe Property Manager
and Doe Property Management Company. The property management Defendants are residents of
Charleston County and/or principally located in Charleston County doing substantial business
within Charleston County and South Carolina. These Defendants are referred to collectively as
“Property Manager Defendants.”
10. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter herein pursuant to South
Carolina Code Section 15-51-10 et seq. and Section 15-5-90, and venue is proper in this county
5
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-7-30 because the Defendants resided in Charleston County, South
Carolina at the time the cause of action arose and the acts and omissions giving rise to the causes
of action alleged herein occurred in Charleston County, South Carolina.
FACTS
11. On or about October 26, 2018, Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter entered
into a short-term rental agreement with the Pilcher Living Trust and/or the above-listed property
owners or the above-listed property managers.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Rios intended to host a sweet sixteen birthday
party for her daughter at the subject property. The purpose of the rental was to host the party at
this property on Folly Beach.
13. Upon information and belief, the Property Owner Defendants and/or the Property Manager
Defendants knew or should have known based upon the available information at the time,
Defendant Rios intended to host an illegal underage party with alcohol.
14. On October 26, 2018, Decedent was invited to the party and was a guest thereof where he
consumed multiple alcoholic beverages. The alcohol was provided by Defendant Rios and/or
Defendant Airbnb Renter.
15. Decedent was nineteen years old at the time. Defendant Rios and Defendant Airbnb Renter
knew there would be multiple underage children at the party drinking alcohol. The alcohol at the
party was consumed in their presence.
16. Decedent was served alcohol at the party and became grossly intoxicated. The post-
mortem forensic toxicology examination revealed his BAC as 0.14% (140 mg/dL).
17. It is unlawful in the State of South Carolina to serve alcohol to any person under the age
of twenty-one years.
6
18. After becoming intoxicated at the party, Decedent left the property in a drunken and
incapacitated state.
19. Decedent ended up walking alongside the roadway on East Ashely Avenue on Folly Beach.
Due to the effect of alcohol on his body – Decedent weighed only 111 pounds – he could not
maintain his faculties and was effectively incapacitated. Decedent ended up lying in the roadway
due to such incapacitation.
20. Defendant Wright was driving for Lyft on the night of Decedent’s death. Defendant Wright
received a ride hail from an individual on Folly Beach. On his way to pick up that person,
Defendant Wright drove past Decedent on East Ashely Avenue.
21. After picking up his for-hire passenger on behalf of his employer Lyft, Defendant Wright
drove back down East Ashely Avenue. At all times herein, Defendant Wright was acting as the
employee, agent, and/or apparent agent of Lyft.
22. Defendant Wright, failing to keep proper lookout and failing to pay attention to the
roadway ahead of him, ran over Decedent with his car. Before Decedent was stuck by Defendant
Wright’s car, Decedent raised his arms to signal help and give warning to the oncoming vehicle.
Defendant Wright failed to see Decedent, failed to keep proper control of his vehicle such that he
could either stop or avoid the collision, then ran over the intoxicated child.
23. Defendant Wright’s passenger saw the child and attempted to get Defendant Wright’s
attention; however, Defendant Wright failed to stop or take evasive action in time to avoid running
over the child.
24. Decedent sustained life-ending injuries in the collision and died on the roadway. An
autopsy was performed wherein the pathologist determined Decedent died due to multiple blunt
force injuries.
7
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY – NEGLIGENCE – NEGLIGENCE PER SE
(AS TO DEFENDANT RIOS and DEFENDANT AIRBNB RENTER)
25. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates the preceding paragraphs set forth above as if fully
set forth herein verbatim.
26. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter knew or
should have known that the State of South Carolina treats minors like Landon Dias and the other
underage party-goers as individuals who lack full adult capacity to make informed decisions
concerning the ingestion of alcoholic beverages.
27. Plaintiff is further informed and believes Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter
knew or should have known it was against the law and against the stated public policy of the State of
South Carolina for a social host to knowingly serve or cause to be served alcoholic beverages to
persons under twenty-one years.
28. South Carolina Code Annotated § 61-6-4070 states that it “is unlawful for a person to transfer
or give to a person under the age of twenty-one years for the purpose of consumption of alcoholic
liquors while in the State . . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-4070 (1976).
29. The statutes prohibiting the furnishing of alcoholic beverages to minors are designed to
prevent harm to both the minor and to the members of the public harmed by the minor’s consumption
of alcohol. See Norton v. Opening Break of Aiken, INC., 313 S.C. 508, 443 S.E.2d 406 (1994); and
see Marcum v. Bowden, 372 S.C. 452, 643 S.E.2d 85 (2007).
30. Therefore, Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter, the social host(s) of Decedent,
owed a duty of due care to Landon Dias not to serve or cause to be served alcoholic beverages to the
known minor and to safeguard the minor and ensure his care and health.
8
31. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter knew or
should have known that social hosts are liable to underage persons (first party liability) as well as any
injured third party (third party liability) who may be injured as a result of a social host furnishing or
causing to be furnished alcoholic beverages to a minor.
32. All of the alcoholic beverages provided to the Decedent were provided by or caused to be
provided by Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter while acting in the capacity as a social
host for Landon Dias.
33. Plaintiff is informed and believes Decedent ingested a significant and dangerous amount of
alcohol while Decedent was an invited guest of Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter and
that but for Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter serving, and/or causing to be served,
alcoholic beverages and creating the aforementioned dangerous conditions Decedent would be alive
and unharmed today.
34. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s acts and/or omissions Plaintiff is entitled to
recover actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages from Defendant Rios and/or
Defendant Airbnb Renter as determined by a jury.
35. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants owed the Decedent a duty of due care and breached
the duty of due care.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE – CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION – PREMISE LIABILITY
(AS TO DEFENDANT RIOS and DEFENDANT AIRBNB RENTER)
9
37. Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent
from harm to Decedent as a result of intoxication. Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter
breached this duty of reasonable care proximately causing actual damages to the Decedent.
38. The injuries, damages, and resulting death of Decedent described in this Complaint were the
direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the negligence, negligence per se, careless, willful, wanton,
reckless, and grossly negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb
Renter.
39. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter owed the
Decedent a duty of due care and breached the duty of due care.
40. Plaintiff is informed and believes that while the Decedent was in the custody and care of
Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter as an invited guest at the rental house there became
known a dangerous, unlawful condition that posed a serious threat to the Decedent’s health and
well-being.
41. Plaintiff is informed and believes while Decedent was an invited guest of Defendant Rios
and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter both Decedent and multiple other underage persons became
intoxicated and suffered from one or more of the following: loss of critical judgment; diminished
attention, judgment and control; impairment of motor coordination; loss of critical judgment;
slurred speech; balance impairment; reaction time impairment; and/or clinical symptoms or
impairments that have been documented in the scientific and medical literature which are
consistent with blood alcohol levels reported by the forensic toxicologist.
42. Plaintiff is further informed and believes the aforementioned dangerous condition occurred
over an extended period of hours during the evening and into the night all within the purview of
Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter or with his/her/their knowledge.
10
43. The injuries and death of the Decedent were caused by the willful, wanton, reckless, grossly
negligent and negligent acts and/or omissions of the Defendant, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Failing to use reasonable care to avoid injury to the Decedent;
b. Failing to warn the Decedent of dangerous activities carried on

inside, around, and/or adjacent to Defendant’s home;
c. Failing to avoid the creation of unreasonable risks of physical and

bodily harm to the Decedent;
d. Failing to take safety precautions to warn Decedent or eliminate

the unreasonable risk of harm or unlawful conduct;
e. In serving, or causing to be served, alcohol to a minor;
g. Such other particulars as may be introduced at trial.
44. Through Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter’s careless and reckless actions and
omissions, they created a hazardous condition whereby underage drinkers were consuming alcohol,
becoming intoxicated, and increasing the likelihood that one of the attendees would be injured or
killed.
45. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s acts and/or omissions Plaintiff is entitled to
recover actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages from Defendant Rios and/or
Defendant Airbnb Renter as determined by a jury.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE – PREMISE LIABILITY
(AS TO PROPERTY OWNER DEFENDANTS &
PROPERTY MANAGER DEFENDANTS)
11
47. Upon information and belief, the Property Owner Defendants and/or the Property Manager
Defendants entered into a short-term rental agreement with Defendant Rios and/or Defendant
Airbnb Renter.
48. Upon information and belief the Property Owner Defendants and/or Property Manager
Defendants knew or should have known the property was being rented to host the subject sweet
sixteen birthday party, that alcohol would be served to minors, and underage drinkers would be
coming and going from the property.
49. The Property Owner Defendants and/or Property Manager Defendants knew or should have
known that they had a duty to maintain the subject property in a reasonably safe condition for
invitees. This duty includes ensuring the property is being used lawfully and without creating an
unreasonable risk of harm to invitees or others encountering the property.
50. The Property Owner and/or Property Manager Defendants breached this duty in allowing
the property to be used for the illegal service of alcohol to underage drinkers, and more specifically
the events of the night giving rise to the present legal action.
51. The presence and distribution of alcohol on the premises created a condition unreasonably
dangerous for children (underage drinkers). The Property Owner and/or Property Manager
Defendants owed a duty of care to Decedent, as an invitee on the property, to discover risks and
take safety precautions to warn of or eliminate the unreasonable risks.
52. The use of the property for the sweet sixteen birthday party coupled with the distribution
of alcohol to underage drinkers created a hazardous, artificial condition for which Decedent and
the other underage attendees did not appreciate the risk because of their youth.
53. The Property Owner and/or Property Manager Defendants failed to use reasonable
measures to prevent and/or stop the distribution of alcohol to minors on the property and thereby
12
eliminate the hazardous condition. The actions and/or omissions of these Defendants were a direct
and proximate cause of Decedent’s injuries and resulting death.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE/ GROSS NEGLIGENCE/ NEGLIGENCE PER SE
(AS TO DEFENDANT JOHNATHAN WRIGHT)
55. Defendant Wright owed a duty to Decedent to operate his car safely, with reasonable care,
and in accordance with the driving laws of the State of South Carolina and the rules of the road.
56. At the time of the collision, Defendant Wright was driving the Kia Sonata with a for-hire
passenger present. The passenger and Lyft enter into an agreement through the cell phone
application whereby Lyft provides transportation for a fee. Defendant Wright was providing that
transportation on behalf of Lyft and for the benefit of Lyft.
57. Lyft in return pays the driver, Defendant Wright, for the labor, time, use of materials, and
professional driving services of the for-hire transportation.
58. During the Lyft fare, Defendant Wright was negligent, negligent per se, willful, wanton,
and/or reckless in breaching the duties owed to Decedent in one or more of the following ways:
a. Operating the vehicle in a negligent and careless manner;
b. Driving too fast for the conditions then and there prevailing;
c. Failing to use due care;
d. Failing to keep proper control of the vehicle;
e. Failing to keep proper lookout;
f. Failing to keep the vehicle properly equipped with proper brakes, and if so equipped
failing to timely use the brakes;
13
g. Failing to keep the vehicle properly equipped with proper headlights, with proper
lamination, and angulation towards the roadway;
h. Failing to use the degree of care and caution that a reasonably prudent driver would
have used under the circumstances then and there prevailing;
i. Such other particulars that may be discovered and established during the trial of this
case.
59. Decedent is in the protected class of persons the driving laws of the State of South Carolina
are designed to protect.
60. Defendant Wright’s actions and omissions set forth herein were a direct and proximate
cause of the collision with Decedent, his injuries, and his resulting death.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE – RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR – VICARIOUS LIABILITY
(AS TO LYFT, INC. and LYFT DRIVES SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.)
62. At the time of the motor vehicle collision giving rise to this lawsuit, Defendant Wright,
who was carrying a passenger on a Lyft ride in the Kia Sonata, was the agent or employee of Lyft
and was acting subject to Lyft's control and/or right of control.
63. Defendant Wright was driving the subject car in the course and scope of his employment
relationship with Lyft as an agent and/or apparent agent.
64. Defendant Wright was driving the Lyft passenger for the financial benefit of Lyft.
65. Lyft has control and/or the right to control all particulars regarding who, when, and how
the Lyft ride is conducted. Lyft knows or should have known the necessity for exercising such
control in the conduct of its for-hire transportation business.
14
66. At all relevant times herein, Lyft was a contract carrier with duties and responsibilities
commensurate with the circumstances then and there prevailing to a degree of a common carrier
under the common law of South Carolina.
67. At all relevant times herein, Lyft had a nondelegable duty to provide safe transportation
services and operate said business with an appropriate level of safety for the passengers and the
general public on the roadways.
68. Lyft has exclusive control over who can accept fares for transportation as a Lyft driver and
user of its cell phone application. Lyft controls the age, driving history, age of vehicle, and
condition of vehicle requirements among many other factors and aspects in the operation of its
transportation service business.
69. Lyft exercises or has a right to exercise significant control over its drivers, including
Defendant Wright, by unilaterally setting the rates that they can charge, unilaterally determining
the portion of the payment remitted to drivers to compensate them for their services, requiring
drivers to comply with their policies and procedures for personal conduct and vehicle maintenance,
and prohibiting drivers from soliciting rides from customers who do not use the Lyft application.
70. Customers must use the Lyft app to request a Lyft ride. Drivers must use the Lyft app to
carry passengers on behalf of Lyft.
71. After the customer requests a Lyft ride, Lyft alerts a nearby Lyft driver of the request via
a notification and requires the Lyft driver to accept the request within a timeframe exclusively
controlled by Lyft before the request is sent to another Lyft driver driving for the company. Once
the Lyft driver accepts the customer's request, Lyft requires the driver travel to the passenger's
location to pick up the passenger in a timely manner. Lyft allows the customer to cancel the request
if its driver does not arrive within the allotted window and the driver will lose the fare.
15
72. Upon information and belief, Lyft required its drivers, including Defendant Wright, during
all times relevant herein, to actively monitor the ride hailing application on the driver’s smart
phone/ cellular phone. Lyft required such active and constant monitoring while its drivers are
actively and simultaneously carrying passengers for hire while driving the vehicle.
73. Upon information and belief, Lyft incentivized its drivers, including Defendant Wright to
prioritize the driver’s attention to the Lyft application on the driver’s smart phone over attention
to the roadway and focus on driving the vehicle safely.
74. Upon information and belief, Lyft penalized its drivers, including Defendant Wright for
ignoring notifications, alerts, and messages from Lyft and the Lyft application to include new ride
hail notifications received during the existing route being driven and while operating the vehicle.
75. Lyft provides, encourages, and/or requires its branding and insignia be displayed
prominently on the Lyft driver’s vehicle.
76. Through the particulars set forth herein and such other facts that may be discovered in this
case and proved at trial, Lyft was negligent, grossly negligent, and/or reckless in the method and
manner Lyft operated for-hire, contract carrier, transportation services. Lyft’s negligence herein
includes the negligent supervision and training of its drivers, to include Defendant Wright.
77. Lyft communicates directly with Lyft drivers, by providing electronic messaging to and
from the driver, with information regarding driver location, availability for passenger pickup,
location of pick up, time for pick up, navigation routes, drop off locations, fares, payment
information, and ratings of passenger users.
78. Lyft communicates directly with its drivers and its passengers through the cell phone
application.
16
79. At all relevant times herein, Lyft was responsible for the acts and/or omissions of
Defendant Wright in addition to Lyft’s own negligent acts and/or omissions.
80. At all relevant times herein, Lyft was the principal and/or employer of Defendant Wright
and is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and/ or omissions of this Defendant.
81. The acts and/or omissions of Lyft and its driver, Defendant Wright, were a direct and
proximate cause of the collision and Decedents injuries, including his death.
FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

WRONGFUL DEATH
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
83. As a result of the above-referenced negligent acts, Decedent suffered conscious pain and
suffering, personal injuries and trauma prior to his death.
84. Further, the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for funeral expenses and other
compensatory damages, and is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a
jury for the matters as alleged herein.
85. Pursuant to the Death by Wrongful Act, § 15-51-10 et al., South Carolina Code of Laws,
Plaintiff alleges entitlement to all of the above-referenced and foregoing causes of action as
survivor and/or as Personal Representative of the Estate of Landon Antoine Dias.
86. The Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of the death of the Decedent, Decedent’s
beneficiaries have suffered and will suffer pecuniary loss, mental shock and suffering, wounded
feelings, grief and sorrow, loss of companionship, deprivation of use and comfort of Decedent’s
society, all both past and future, and funeral expenses, and other compensatory damages, all to the
17
beneficiaries’ actual damages, and further are entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be
determined by a jury.
87. All of the above-referenced acts and/or omissions and/or commissions are in violation of
the common laws and statutes of the State of South Carolina, and the Defendants’ obligations and
duties to the Plaintiff
FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

SURVIVAL ACTION
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
89. As a result of the above-referenced acts, Decedent sustained serious injuries ultimately
causing his wrongful death.
90. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the above-referenced acts, the Decedent suffered
conscious pain and suffering, personal injuries and trauma prior to his death, and Plaintiff is
entitled to funeral expenses and other compensatory damages and is entitled to punitive damages
in an amount to be determined by a jury.
91. Pursuant to the Survival of Right of Action, § 15-5-90 et al., South Carolina Code of Laws,
the Plaintiff alleges entitlement to all of the above-referenced and foregoing causes of action as a
survivor and as the Personal Representative of the deceased Landon Antoine Dias.
92. All of the above-referenced acts and/or omissions and/or commissions are in violation of
the common laws and statutes of the State of South Carolina, and the Defendants’ obligations and
duties to the Plaintiff.
93. Each of these acts and/or omissions and/or commissions combined and concurred to
proximately cause Decedent’s injuries and wrongful death.
18
94. As such, the Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages and such other and further relief
as this honorable Court and the jury deems just and proper.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following:
i. Judgment against Defendants, both individually and joint and several, for
actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;
ii. Judgement against Defendants, individually, for punitive damages in an

amount to be determined by the jury;
iii. For the costs of this action; and
iv. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MCLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
3 Morris Street, Suite A
PO Box 21624
Charleston, South Carolina 29413
P: 843-277-6655 F: 843-277-6660
Michael Thomas Cooper, Bar No. 100053

W. Mullins McLeod, Jr., Bar No. 14148
AND
______________________________
Alex Apostolou, Bar No. 72190
Apostolou Law Firm
3443 Rivers Ave.
North Charleston, SC 29405
P: 843-853-3637
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
October 26, 2021

Charleston, South Carolina
19

Roumillat V Lyft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Roumillat V Lyft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Oct 26 1:52 PM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP1004910

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

TO: THE DEFENDANT ABOVE-NAMED:

Michael Thomas Cooper, Bar No. 100053

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

and show unto the Court the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Defendant Johnathan J. Wright (hereinafter “Wright” or “Defendant Wright”) is a citizen

South Carolina, Inc.

maintain the same Registered Agent in South Carolina.

“Property Owner Defendants.”

“Property Manager Defendants.”

of action alleged herein occurred in Charleston County, South Carolina.

owners or the above-listed property managers.

this property on Folly Beach.

Defendant Rios intended to host an illegal underage party with alcohol.

Defendant Airbnb Renter.

party was consumed in their presence.

due to such incapacitation.

Defendant Wright drove past Decedent on East Ashely Avenue.

employee, agent, and/or apparent agent of Lyft.

over the child.

set forth herein verbatim.

concerning the ingestion of alcoholic beverages.

persons under twenty-one years.

liquors while in the State . . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-4070 (1976).

see Marcum v. Bowden, 372 S.C. 452, 643 S.E.2d 85 (2007).

causing to be furnished alcoholic beverages to a minor.

host for Landon Dias.

and unharmed today.

Defendant Airbnb Renter as determined by a jury.

the duty of due care.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

set forth herein verbatim.

consistent with blood alcohol levels reported by the forensic toxicologist.

Defendant Rios and/or Defendant Airbnb Renter or with his/her/their knowledge.

a. Failing to use reasonable care to avoid injury to the Decedent;

b. Failing to warn the Decedent of dangerous activities carried on

c. Failing to avoid the creation of unreasonable risks of physical and

d. Failing to take safety precautions to warn Decedent or eliminate

e. In serving, or causing to be served, alcohol to a minor;

g. Such other particulars as may be introduced at trial.

Defendant Airbnb Renter as determined by a jury.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

set forth herein verbatim.

coming and going from the property.

unreasonable risk of harm to invitees or others encountering the property.

take safety precautions to warn of or eliminate the unreasonable risks.

and proximate cause of Decedent’s injuries and resulting death.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

set forth herein verbatim.

transportation on behalf of Lyft and for the benefit of Lyft.

professional driving services of the for-hire transportation.

a. Operating the vehicle in a negligent and careless manner;

c. Failing to use due care;

d. Failing to keep proper control of the vehicle;

e. Failing to keep proper lookout;

failing to timely use the brakes;

lamination, and angulation towards the roadway;

have used under the circumstances then and there prevailing;

are designed to protect.

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

set forth herein verbatim.