Trucking Collision Lawsuit
Plaintiff Rodnei Martinez Bonne filed a negligence lawsuit against Defendant Matthew Glenn Wofford and trucking company New Prime Inc. Wofford operated a tractor trailer on behalf of New Prime Inc. at the time of the incident. Plaintiff alleged that New Prime Inc. owned, controlled, and authorized the vehicle involved. The collision occurred on December 17, 2022, at a warehouse loading dock in Doral, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Both Defendants fell under Florida jurisdiction, as the accident and related business activities took place locally.
Incident Details and Alleged Cause
On December 17, 2022, Plaintiff parked his vehicle facing eastbound at a warehouse loading dock. Defendant Wofford reversed a tractor trailer westbound into the same area. Plaintiff asserted that Wofford failed to check his surroundings and did not exercise proper care while backing up, resulting in the trailer striking the driver’s side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff argued that Wofford, operating under New Prime Inc.’s authority, ignored safety procedures and violated traffic rules despite the trailer’s classification as a dangerous instrument requiring extra caution. The collision happened during routine freight operations.
Nature and Extent of Plaintiff’s Injuries
The impact from the collision caused Plaintiff serious physical harm, including lasting injuries, pain, and physical impairment. Plaintiff’s ability to work and enjoy life suffered as a result. He experienced mental anguish, disfigurement, and inconvenience. Medical opinion confirmed that his injuries were permanent. Plaintiff required medical care, hospitalization, and nursing assistance.
Damages Sought by Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained significant damage. He sought compensation for lost earnings and reduced earning capacity, in addition to medical expenses. Plaintiff’s claim included damages for emotional suffering, mental distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. He requested damages exceeding $50,000, plus post-judgment interest, legal costs, and any other relief the court found appropriate.
Key Arguments and Legal Proceedings
Legal Representation and Expert Witnesses
Plaintiffs: Rodnei Martinez Bonne
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Wiley Andrew Rariden
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: David Kreisberg | Modesto Sanchez-Torres | Avery J. Knapp Jr | Timothy Osbon
Defendants: Matthew Glenn Wofford | New Prime Inc.
Counsel for Defendants: Douglas B. Melamed | Carlo Marichal,
Expert Witness for Defendants: Stephen Jacobs
Claims Against the Defendants
Count I: Negligence – Against Defendant Matthew Glenn Wofford
Plaintiff claimed Defendant Wofford acted negligently while operating the tractor trailer. Allegations included failing to keep a proper lookout, violating traffic laws, and failing to avoid the collision. Plaintiff stated that Wofford’s actions directly caused his significant injuries and referenced potential additional negligent conduct.
Count II: Vicarious Liability – Against Defendant New Prime Inc.
Plaintiff argued that New Prime Inc. bore legal responsibility for Wofford’s conduct, as Wofford operated the vehicle within the scope of his employment. Plaintiff sought to hold the company liable for both the collision and resulting damages.
Defense Position and Affirmative Defenses
Defendant Wofford admitted to operating the tractor trailer within the scope of his employment but denied all allegations of negligence, breach of duty, causation, and damages. He maintained that he acted appropriately and that legal duties are questions for the court. Defendant raised affirmative defenses, primarily arguing that Plaintiff’s own negligence, including inattention, improper parking, and failure to mitigate, contributed to or caused the incident. Defendant relied on Florida’s comparative negligence laws to seek a barred or reduced recovery.
Defendant further contended that Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing or unrelated to the incident and disputed the extent of damages, referencing collateral sources, medical billing, lack of causation, and failure to mitigate. Wofford also argued that Plaintiff did not meet the statutory injury threshold under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. Regarding Count II, Defendant stated it did not assert a claim against him and demanded strict proof if otherwise interpreted.
Jury Verdict
On February 27, 2025, the jury ruled in favor of Defendant Matthew Glenn Wofford and against Plaintiff Rodnei Martinez Bonne. The jury found that Plaintiff failed to prove the required elements of negligence and causation. As a result, the jury determined that Defendant was not liable for Plaintiff’s claims. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, and no damages were awarded.
