$1.5M Settlement for Pedestrian Injury in Los Angeles
Table of Contents
Case Background
On a summer afternoon in August 2019, 15-year-old Roberto Diaz Garcia attempted to cross the street near the intersection of Maple Avenue and East 37th Street in Los Angeles. As the teenager stepped into the crosswalk area, a vehicle struck him with significant force, resulting in life-altering injuries. The incident occurred at an intersection that the Plaintiff later alleged was a "trap" for both pedestrians and drivers due to poor visibility and inadequate safety measures. Following the accident, Garcia, through his mother and Guardian ad Litem Belen Garcia, filed a legal action against the City of Los Angeles. The lawsuit claimed that the city had known about the hazardous conditions at this specific location but had failed to take the necessary steps to protect the public.
Cause
The Plaintiff alleged that the City of Los Angeles designed and maintained a dangerous intersection. Specifically, the legal complaint stated that the city failed to install proper traffic signals or visible stop signs that could have alerted drivers to the pedestrian crossing. The lack of speed bumps, speed limit signs, and adequate street lighting also contributed to the crash. Essentially, the Plaintiff argued that the city’s oversight and neglect in managing this public property created a predictable risk of harm.
Injury
The collision left the young Plaintiff with devastating physical trauma. He suffered permanent and extensive orthopedic injuries that severely limited his mobility. In addition to the bone fractures, Garcia sustained second and third-degree burns across his body. Doctors also evaluated him for possible brain damage resulting from the impact. Beyond the physical pain, the 15-year-old experienced severe emotional distress and mental anguish as he faced a future permanently altered by his injuries.
Damages Sought
The lawsuit requested compensation for a wide range of losses. This included the mounting medical bills from his initial emergency care and surgeries, as well as the cost of the lifelong medical treatment he would require. Garcia also sought damages for his lost future earning capacity, as his permanent disabilities would likely prevent him from pursuing many types of employment. Additionally, the claim included compensation for his intense physical pain, suffering, and the psychological impact of the trauma.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The legal battle centered on whether the City of Los Angeles was legally responsible for the intersection’s safety. The proceedings involved extensive discovery into the city's records regarding past accidents and neighborhood complaints about the Maple Avenue and East 37th Street crossing.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Roberto Diaz Garcia, a minor, by and through Belen Garcia.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Karen R. Dodge | Terrence L. Butler
Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles.
Counsel for Defendant(s): The Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Plaintiff’s attorneys argued that the city’s negligence was evident in its failure to follow basic safety guidelines. They pointed out that the stop signs at the intersection were not reflective or well-lit, making them nearly invisible to drivers at certain times. The legal team emphasized that the city had been on notice regarding the high speed of traffic in the area but did nothing to reduce the speed limit or install traffic-calming measures like speed bumps.
Claims
The Plaintiff brought several specific legal claims against the city. First, they alleged "Negligent Design" under the California Government Code, arguing the original plan for the intersection was flawed. Second, they claimed the intersection constituted a "Dangerous Condition of Public Property," asserting the city maintained the site in a way that created a substantial risk of injury. The lawsuit also included claims of general negligence regarding the city’s failure to supervise and train employees responsible for road maintenance.
Defense
The City of Los Angeles initially defended its actions by arguing that the intersection met all applicable engineering standards at the time it was designed. The city’s legal team likely contended that the driver who hit Garcia was the primary cause of the accident, rather than the configuration of the road. They also might have argued for "design immunity," a legal protection that sometimes shields government entities from liability if they can show that a reasonable authority approved the original plans for a public project.
Settlement
After a period of litigation and the presentation of evidence regarding the city's prior knowledge of the intersection's hazards, the parties reached a resolution. Rather than proceeding to a full jury verdict that could have resulted in a higher or lower award, the City of Los Angeles agreed to settle the case. The city paid a total settlement amount of $1,500,000 to Roberto Diaz Garcia. This settlement provided the necessary funds for the teenager’s ongoing medical care and served as a legal acknowledgement of the claims regarding the dangerous conditions at the intersection. The funds were placed in a structure to ensure they would support Garcia’s needs throughout his adulthood, accounting for his diminished earning capacity and the permanent nature of his injuries.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com