Booth v. Delano: $32.5M Verdict in Lancaster Car Crash
Table of Contents
Case Background
This legal battle began after a severe multi-vehicle collision occurred on Avenue L near 8th Street West in Lancaster, California. On the day of the accident, Briana Booth had been driving her 2016 Honda Accord on the public roadway. Nearby, Samantha Delano operated a 2015 Jeep Cherokee, while Linda Fowler drove a 2000 Chevy Silverado. The sequence of events led to a violent crash involving these three vehicles. Before the collision happened, the Defendants had allegedly failed to maintain proper control of their respective vehicles. Ms. Booth filed a lawsuit against both drivers, claiming their shared negligence had upended her life and caused permanent physical harm.
Cause
The primary cause of the incident centered on the collective negligence of Samantha Delano and Linda Fowler. Briana Booth alleged that both women had operated their vehicles carelessly and failed to exercise the caution expected of a reasonable driver. Specifically, the legal complaint asserted that the Defendants had managed and controlled their vehicles in a way that made a collision inevitable. By the time the vehicles collided, the Defendants had already breached their duty to keep the roadway safe for others.
Injury
As a direct result of the crash, Briana Booth sustained life-altering physical injuries and profound emotional trauma. The collision had caused her significant physical pain and mental suffering. Furthermore, the injuries resulted in permanent disfigurement and physical impairment, which deeply impacted her quality of life. Beyond the immediate physical damage, she experienced ongoing grief, anxiety, and humiliation stemming from the limitations imposed by her new physical reality.
Damages Sought
In her pursuit of justice, Ms. Booth sought both economic and non-economic damages to address the full scope of her losses. She requested compensation for the staggering medical expenses she would incur in the future to manage her injuries. Additionally, the lawsuit asked for a significant award to cover the intangible but devastating non-economic losses, such as her physical pain, the loss of enjoyment of life, and the emotional distress that followed the accident. She also sought to recover costs for her reduced capacity to work and perform her usual daily activities.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The trial took place in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, starting on February 4, 2025, and lasting several weeks. Judge Susan Bryant-Deason presided over the proceedings as both sides presented their evidence to a jury of twelve.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Briana Booth.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jason P. Fowler | Jonathan W. Douglass of the Parris Law Firm.
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Alon Antebi | Tamorah Hunt | Anthony Reading | Ricky Alan Sarkisian | Jeff Suway | Daniel Voss | Thomas J. Zweber
Defendant(s): Samantha Delano and Linda Fowler.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Richard E. McGreevy | Charles S. Custer (for Samantha Delano) | Stephen Pasarow | Kevin J. Stack (for Linda Fowler).
· Experts for Defendant(s): Jason A. Arst | Babak Barcohana | Edward Bennett | Geneviève M Clavreul | Jennifer “Jenn” Craigmyle | Thomas Fugger | David Krauss | Jennie McNulty | Todd D. Moldawer | Tamera G. Rockholt | James E. Rosenberg
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Counsel for Briana Booth argued that the combined actions of Delano and Fowler had created a trap for their client on the highway. They emphasized that if either driver had maintained a safe distance or paid better attention, the crash would never have occurred. Conversely, the defense teams for Delano and Fowler pointed fingers at one another and at Ms. Booth herself. Linda Fowler’s defense team specifically argued that Ms. Booth had failed to act as a reasonably prudent person and that her own negligence had contributed to her injuries. They suggested that any award should be significantly reduced because other parties—including unnamed "Doe" Defendants bore the real responsibility for the accident.
Claims
The legal framework of the case rested on a central claim of negligence.
Negligence Ms. Booth’s legal team asserted that both Defendants had a legal duty to operate their vehicles safely and that they had failed to do so. They argued that the Defendants' lack of care was the "substantial factor" that led to the crash and the resulting catastrophic injuries.
Defense
The Defendants relied on a strategy of comparative negligence and apportionment of fault. They maintained that they had not been the sole cause of the harm. Linda Fowler’s answer to the complaint raised the affirmative defense that Ms. Booth had failed to mitigate her damages after the accident. The defense also argued that the facts presented by the Plaintiff were insufficient to establish a clear cause of action against them.
Verdict
On March 20, 2025, a jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court found in favor of Plaintiff Briana Booth in her negligence case against Defendants Samantha Delano and Linda Fowler. The jury determined that both Defendants were negligent and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff. The jury assigned 85% of the responsibility to Samantha Delano and 15% to Linda Fowler. The jury awarded total damages of $32,500,000, consisting of $6,000,000 for future medical expenses, $4,500,000 for past non-economic losses, and $22,000,000 for future non-economic losses. No damages were awarded for future lost earning capacity.
Judgment
On June 4, 2025, Judge Susan Bryant-Deason entered an amended judgment on the special verdict. The Court ordered that both Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the $6,000,000 in economic damages plus $2,646,575.32 in prejudgment interest on those economic damages. Samantha Delano was individually ordered to pay $23,160,264.57 representing her 85% share of non-economic damages and costs, plus $9,935,684.97 in prejudgment interest. Linda Fowler was individually ordered to pay $4,087,105.51 representing her 15% share of non-economic damages and costs, plus $1,753,356.17 in prejudgment interest. All amounts accrue post-judgment interest at 10% per annum from April 1, 2025 until satisfied.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com
