It sounds like she is flinging everything against the wall in hopes that something sticks. The article stated that he was being blackmailed and extorted yet the only "proof" was that his watch was missing? Granted, the article could be missing some details - but this sounds a bit off.

This is weird, unless we write it off as the widow trying to profit in any way she can. She's suing everyone. Individuals, 2 restaurants, a rental car company, a golf driving range, a trucking company, the FL Dept of Transportation, and the private company that installs signage along I-95.

I'm not sure how all those entities are involved in a conspiracy and/or extortion scheme against Haskins, or why, if that's what happened, she isn't pursuing criminal charges against someone (as far as we know from reporting).

What's she suing the rental car company for? Not having bigger gas tanks which made her husband get out of the car to go get gas?

The complaint just says the rental truck was “mechanically damaged and ran out of gas.” No explanation of what the damage was and how it relates to running out of gas. I suppose if the gas gauge was broken they might have an argument. But, the complaint is a mess in search of a theory.

I haven't seen the complaint, but this seems like a bunch of potentially competing theories. If the truck driver was at fault because he was negligent, then it seems less likely that the signage or rental car company would have fault, because how is it reasonable for them to assume their actions could result in a negligent truck driver running over a person? And if the real cause was an extortion plan involving drugging Haskins, then is it reasonable to think any of the other parties (FL Dept of Transportation?) should have foreseen this and taken other action to avoid? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

It sounds, to the layman, like Mrs. Haskins got a lawyer and the lawyer convinced her to sue everyone and see if they could get anything.

Here is the complaint. It's not very illuminating, except to confirm the truth of your last sentence.

https://www.outkick.com/...kins-Complaint-1.pdf

If it were true that the rental truck had a defective gas gauge and the truck driver was also negligent in hitting Haskins, it would make sense to sue them both. The jury can sort out the apportionment of liability as between those two defendants. Suing just one of them would ensure a defense that it was the other one that was really at fault. It is foreseeable that having a defective gas gauge could put the driver in a dangerous situation, and the rental company would bear some fault for that, even if the truck driver was also negligent in failing to swerve and avoid Haskins. They can fight amongst themselves as to the allocation of fault in that scenario.

If A hits B's car, and then B dies in the ambulance due to an EMT error, B's estate can sue A and the ambulance company. Even though the EMT's specific error may not be foreseeable, A is on the hook for injuring B and putting B in a situation where medical care was required to save B. The ambulance company will also bear its share of liability for converting an injury into a death.

I agree with you on the drugging theory. If it were true that someone intentionally drugged him, they are going to get hit with most/all of the liability. (Though it leaves open the question of why the truck ran out of gas. Assuming the truck was full when rented, he must have driven a lot for a person who was drugged).