$401,849 Verdict in Fresno County Fallen Tree Collision
Table of Contents
Case Background
The legal dispute began after Vincent Andrade suffered injuries in a late-night collision on a public roadway. On March 13, 2023, Andrade had been driving down a street that lacked adequate lighting when his vehicle struck a large tree. The tree had fallen across the public thoroughfare and remained there despite reports of the hazard the previous night. No one had closed off the area or placed any warning lights or markers to alert motorists. Andrade filed a lawsuit against the County of Fresno and the City of Fresno on December 7, 2023, claiming that the public entities had failed to maintain the road or protect the public from a known hazard.
Cause
The primary cause of the accident centered on a dangerous condition of public property. Andrade alleged that the fallen tree created a foreseeable risk of injury, especially since the street remained unlit and the hazard went unmarked. He argued that the County had either actual or constructive notice of the downed tree long enough to have cleared it or warned drivers.
Injury
The collision resulted in significant personal injuries for Andrade. While the specific medical diagnoses were not detailed in the Court filings, the severity of his condition required extensive past medical treatment and necessitated future medical care.
Damages Sought
Andrade sought compensatory damages for several categories of loss. These included past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and a decreased capacity to earn money in the future. Additionally, he requested compensation for non-economic damages, specifically focusing on his physical pain and mental suffering.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The trial took place in December 2025 before the Honorable Lisa Gamoian. Throughout the proceedings, the Court examined whether the County of Fresno bore responsibility for the unsafe roadway and to what extent other parties might have contributed to the accident.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Vincent Andrade.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Marielys Acosta | Jason A. Helsel | Mark A. Vogt
Defendant: County of Fresno.
Counsel for Defendant: Chester E. Walls | Michael L. Renberg
Other Involved Parties: Mahil Land, LLC was identified as a third party during the allocation of fault.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The legal teams focused on the reasonableness of the County's actions and the potential negligence of others.
Claims
Andrade's legal team argued that the County's failure to act was unreasonable given the serious risk the fallen tree posed to drivers. They contended that the County had sufficient time and opportunity to fix the issue but chose not to.
Defense
The County of Fresno denied all allegations and raised several affirmative defenses. They argued that if a dangerous condition existed, it was minor or trivial. They also claimed that the hazard was "open and obvious," meaning a reasonable person should have seen and avoided it. Furthermore, the County alleged that Andrade himself was negligent and that his own actions contributed to the crash.
Jury Verdict
On December 18, 2025, the jury returned a special verdict finding that the property was indeed in a dangerous condition at the time of Andrade’s injury. The jurors determined that this condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm and that the County had notice of the hazard long enough to have protected against it. They concluded that the County’s failure to take sufficient steps was unreasonable and was a substantial factor in causing Andrade’s injuries.
The jury calculated total damages at $401,849. This total included:
Past Economic Loss: $81,849 ($14,736 in lost earnings and $ 67,113 in medical expenses, though the final total was adjusted to $81,849).
Future Economic Loss: $260,000 (all for future medical expenses).
Past Non-Economic Loss: $50,000 for pain and suffering.
Future Non-Economic Loss: $10,000 for pain and suffering.
Regarding the responsibility for the harm, the jury found that Vincent Andrade was not negligent. However, they did find that a third party, Mahil Land, LLC, was negligent and that its negligence was a substantial factor in the harm. Consequently, the jury assigned 75% of the responsibility to the County of Fresno and 25% to Mahil Land, LLC.
Court Documents