STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG Michelle Noaeill-Peraza and Caroline Whittle, Plaintiffs, vs. Andrilla Octavia Worthey, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO.: 2025-CP-42-06089 SUMMONS A lawsuit has been filed against you. YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action, of which a copy is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to the Complaint to said Plaintiff's attorney at the address listed below within thirty (30) days after such service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. You also must file your Answer or Motion with the court. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG Michelle Noaeill-Peraza and Caroline Whittle, Plaintiffs, vs. Andrilla Octavia Worthey, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO.: 2025-CP-42-06089 COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Requested) Plaintiffs complaining of Defendants would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: PARTIES 1. Upon current information and belief, Plaintiffs Michelle Noaeill-Peraza and Caroline Whittle are citizens and residents of Spartanburg County, South Carolina. 2. Upon current information and belief, Defendant Andrilla Octavia Worthey is a citizen and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction in this court is proper, as Defendant was operating a vehicle in South Carolina when she caused the collision that is the subject of this lawsuit. 4. Venue in this Court is proper under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-7-30(D), as Defendant is a nonresident individual and Plaintiffs are residents of Spartanburg County, South Carolina and were at the time of the collision. FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence/ Gross Negligence) 5. The allegations from the previous paragraphs are repeated as if set forth herein verbatim. 6. On November 10, 2024, at approximately 5:13 p.m., Plaintiff Noaeill-Peraza was driving on SC 14 with her daughter, Plaintiff Whittle, and 3 of her grandchildren in the vehicle. Plaintiff Noaeill-Peraza began to slow down for traffic when Defendant failed to slow down and struck Plaintiff's vehicle from behind. 7. Upon impact, both Plaintiffs were hurled about within the interior of the vehicle, which led to painful physical injuries and property damage to Plaintiffs' vehicle. 8. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs were due and caused by and were the direct and proximate result of the negligent, grossly negligent, and/or reckless, willful, and wanton acts of Defendant in one or more of the following particulars, to wit: a. In choosing not to keep a proper lookout for traffic in general, and in particular, Plaintiff's vehicle; b. In choosing to follow too closely for traffic conditions; c. In choosing to drive distracted; d. In evidencing an utter disregard for the safety of the public in general and in particular, Plaintiff; and e. In choosing not to use that degree of care that an ordinary and prudent person would have used under the same or similar circumstances. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent/ and or reckless, willful, and wanton acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs have suffered property damage and painful personal injuries. As a result of their injuries, Plaintiffs have been forced to undergo medical treatment and have incurred medical expenses. As a result of Plaintiffs' injuries, they have been unable to engage in their normal pursuits of happiness, suffered emotional distress, pain, discomfort, mental anguish, alteration of lifestyle, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages, and other damages that may be later determined. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Operation of a motor vehicle constituting negligence per-se) 10. The allegations from the previous paragraphs are repeated as if set forth herein verbatim. 11. Defendant was required to obey the traffic laws of South Carolina. 12. Defendant owed a duty to other drivers and passengers, including Plaintiffs, to follow the rules, laws, and procedures of the road and to operate her vehicle in such a manner as to avoid collision and/ or injury with other drivers, persons, and/ or property. 13. Defendant violated S.C. Code Ann. §56-05-1520(A), which states, in part: "A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Speed must be so controlled to avoid colliding with a person, vehicle, or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of a person to use care." 14. Defendant violated S.C. Code Ann. §56-05-1930(A), which states "[t]he operator of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway." 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of South Carolina's traffic laws, including the ones identified above, she breached her duty to other drivers and passengers, including Plaintiffs, to follow the rules, laws, and procedures of the road and to operate his vehicle in such a manner to avoid collision and/or injury with other drivers, persons, and/or property. 16. As a result of Defendant's failure to operate her vehicle in such a manner as to avoid collision and/or injury with other drivers, persons, and/or property, Defendant caused the collision that is the subject of this lawsuit. 17. Defendant's breach of these statutory duties caused Plaintiff's property damage and physical damages as outlined in this Complaint and incorporated into this cause of action. 18. Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment against Defendant for actual damages and for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as follows: A. For actual damages found to be just and equitable within the discretion of the fact finder; B. For punitive damages if proven by clear and convincing evidence; C. For the costs and disbursements of this action; D. For prejudgment interest at the rate authorized by the Supreme Court of South Carolina and S.C. Code Ann. § 34-31-20(B); and E. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF TYLER RODY, LLC S/Tyler Rody Tyler Rody, Bar No. 104238 661 E. Main St. Spartanburg, SC 29302 (864) 381-7969 – Phone (864) 670-5636 – Fax tyler@rodylaw.com – Email Attorney for Plaintiffs ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2025 Dec 02 11:39 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2025CP4206089 IPL0323084 Mar 18,25,Apr 1 2026