Rebecca Faessel vs. Florence Lisa Hartigan

Case Background

On May 06, 2020, Plaintiff Rebecca Faessel filed an auto negligence lawsuit after a motor vehicle accident at an LA intersection. The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges Gregory W. Alarcon, Anne Hwang, Michelle C. Kim, Michael E. Whitaker, and Daniel M. Crowley presided over this case. [Case Number: 20STCV17233]

Cause

On June 5, 2018, at the intersection of N. Kingsley Drive and Rosewood Avenue in Los Angeles, Rebecca Faessel suffered injuries and damages due to the actions of Florence Lisa Hartigan and other unnamed parties (Does 1 to 10). Hartigan and the other Defendants negligently operated, maintained, and entrusted their vehicle, leading to a collision with Faessel’s vehicle.

Damages

Due to the Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff required medical treatment and incurred medical expenses. The Plaintiff will also face future medical costs. In addition, the Plaintiff suffered lost earnings and a reduced ability to earn in the future. The Plaintiff experienced pain, suffering, and a loss of use, along with property damage. These damages resulted directly from the Defendants’ actions.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Rebecca Faessel
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Joseph Johnson
  • Defendant(s): Florence Lisa Hartigan
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Stephen C. Pasarow

Claims

The Plaintiff alleged general negligence. They claimed that Defendants acted carelessly and unlawfully in the circumstances surrounding the accident. Their failure to exercise reasonable care directly caused Faessel’s injuries and subsequent damages. By neglecting their duty to operate the vehicle responsibly, the Defendants set the events of the accident in motion. This breach of responsibility was the primary cause of Faessel’s harm.

Defense

Defendant Florence Lisa Hartigan denied all allegations and disputed the Plaintiff’s damages. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff’s own negligence and failure to take precautions contributed to the harm. The Defendant argued that other parties caused the damages and that liability should be shared. The Plaintiff allegedly failed to state a valid claim and did not mitigate damages. Defendant also claimed that the Plaintiff’s right to recovery was limited because the vehicle involved was uninsured.

Jury Verdict

On September 25, 2024, the jury found that the Defendant’s admitted negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff.

  • Past non-economic loss: $1,728,760
  • Future non-economic loss: $2,534,220

The verdict totaled $4,262,980.

Court Documents:

Available for purchase upon request