California GoKart-Car Collision: Jury Returns Defense Verdict in Negligence Lawsuit

Liezl Domingo vs. Michelle Quema

On June 11, 2024, the California jury returned a defense verdict after finding that there had been no negligence on the Defendant’s part. In the instant lawsuit, the parents of the injured minor alleged that the Defendant had been reckless and negligent while driving her vehicle, leading to a collision with the minor’s electric GoKart.

Case Background

On July 25, 2023, the parents of the minor injured by the alleged negligence of the Defendants filed a lawsuit before the California State, Contra Costa County, Superior Court. Judge Charles S. Treat presided over this case. [Case number: C23-01831]

Cause

Liezl Joy Domingo and Jay Ar Domingo resided in Contra Costa County, California. They are J.D.’s parents. J.D., a minor residing in Contra Costa County, California, brought this action through her Guardian Ad Litem, Liezl Joy Domingo.

On May 17, 2022, Defendant Michelle Mariko Quema operated her vehicle near Pinnacle Court, Valley Run, Hercules, California, in an allegedly negligent and reckless manner. She drove at high speed without proper regard for her surroundings, leading to a collision with J.D.’s electric GoKart. This incident resulted in injuries to J.D.

Liezl Joy Domingo and Jay Ar Domingo witnessed the entire incident involving their daughter, J.D. from afar. They observed the injuries and damages suffered by J.D., causing them immediate severe emotional distress, fear, and anxiety.

Injury

The Defendants’ conduct allegedly directly resulted in injuries to J.D., a minor, affecting her body and impairing her health, strength, and physical activity. These injuries caused ongoing mental, physical, and emotional stress, along with nervous pain and suffering. Additionally, due to the Defendants’ negligence, J.D. incurred special damages, including medical expenses, property damage, and related costs. The injuries also led to a loss of J.D.’s earning capacity.

Witnessing their daughter’s accident caused Liezl Joy Domingo and Jay Ar Domingo to experience severe emotional distress, including suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, and shock. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ actions, Liezl Joy Domingo and Jay Ar Domingo suffered and continue to suffer mental, physical, and emotional distress, as well as nervous pain and suffering.

Damages

The Plaintiffs sought judgment against the Defendants for general damages and special damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional minimum. They also prayed for prejudgment interest and any recoverable costs of the suit incurred. Lastly, they asked for such other relief as the Court might deem just and proper.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff(s): Liezl Joy Domingo | Jay Ar Domingo
  • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Christopher P Orlando

• Defendant(s): Michelle Mariko Quema | Darlyn M. San Jose | Does 1 – 50
  • Counsel for Defendant(s): Austin L. Houvener

Claims

The Plaintiffs asserted that the careless, negligent, reckless, and unlawful operation of the Defendants’ motor vehicles directly caused the incident and resulting damages to J.D., a minor. They also alleged that the Defendants were negligent and reckless in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining their employees, agents, and independent contractors involved in operating the vehicles during the incident. This negligent and reckless conduct also legally contributed to causing the incident and the damages suffered by J.D.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants inflicted negligent infliction of emotional distress as the parents witnessed the entire incident.

Defense

The Defendants denied the allegations of negligence against them. They filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution against the Plaintiffs.

Jury Verdict

On June 25, 2024, Judge Charles S. Treat entered a judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request