California Jury Awards $1.35M in Crash Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
The dispute arose from a vehicle collision on January 22, 2021, at the junction of State Route 120 westbound to Interstate 5 southbound, near the San Joaquin River. Michael Macias Langford claimed that Matthew Erickson, along with other Defendants, had operated a vehicle in a negligent and unsafe manner, causing it to strike him. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants were not only responsible for driving but also for the maintenance and safe condition of the vehicle. He alleged that their failure to exercise reasonable care directly caused the crash.
Langford filed his complaint in January 2023, asserting that the Defendants owed him a duty to operate their vehicle cautiously, maintain control, and observe the rules of the road. He contended that the Defendants breached this duty through reckless and careless driving, which led to the incident and his injuries. The complaint also alleged that the Defendants had been involved in servicing, repairing, and providing the vehicle, further linking them to the cause of the accident.
Cause that led to the legal dispute
The lawsuit was based on motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Langford claimed that the Defendants had driven in a way that created an unreasonable risk of harm, failed to avoid the collision, and acted without regard for his safety. He argued that the breach of duty was not limited to driving but extended to ensuring the vehicle’s roadworthiness.
Injury
Langford stated that the crash left him with significant physical injuries that reduced his health, strength, and ability to work. He described experiencing ongoing physical pain, emotional distress, and a loss of enjoyment of life. The injuries also restricted his daily activities and created a need for continued medical treatment, which he said would persist into the future.
Damages
Michael Macias Langford sought damages for both economic and noneconomic losses resulting from the collision. His claims included past economic losses for medical expenses, lost earnings, and loss of household services, as well as past noneconomic losses for physical pain, mental suffering, permanent disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. He also pursued future economic losses, including anticipated medical expenses, future lost earnings, and loss of household services, alongside future noneconomic losses for ongoing physical pain, mental suffering, permanent disfigurement, and diminished enjoyment of life. These damages were grounded in his allegations of negligent driving, unsafe vehicle maintenance, and the Defendants’ breach of duty of care.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Michael Macias Langford
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Benjamin Drake | Jeff Bonelli
Defendant(s): Matthew Erickson
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Chad S. Tapp | Marlene T. Ferrell
· Expert for Defendant(s): David J. Seidenwurm
Argument by Counsel of both the parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Langford’s legal team argued that the Defendants failed to maintain safe control of the vehicle, drove in a careless and reckless manner, and directly caused the crash and his resulting injuries. They stressed the law’s requirement that drivers act with reasonable care and highlighted the lasting consequences for Langford, including his ongoing pain, medical needs, and diminished enjoyment of life.
Defense’s Arguments
The defense denied negligence entirely, asserting that the complaint lacked a legal basis. They raised multiple affirmative defenses, claiming that Langford was partially or wholly responsible for the accident, that his damages were overstated, and that some of his losses could have been avoided with reasonable mitigation. They also pointed to the involvement of other potential parties and argued that the Defendants’ actions were not the legal cause of any damages.
Claims
Langford sought recovery for physical injury, emotional distress, past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of household services, and general pain and suffering. The claims were rooted in allegations of negligent driving, unsafe vehicle maintenance, and a breach of the Defendants’ duty of care.
Defense Arguments
The Defendants relied on comparative negligence, assumption of risk, failure to mitigate damages, and the fault of other parties as primary defenses. They maintained that even if an accident occurred, their conduct was not the substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s injuries.
Jury Verdict
The jury’s findings reflected the wide-ranging impact of the crash on Langford’s life. For past economic losses, they awarded $386,076 for medical expenses, $16,864 for lost earnings, and $10,320 for lost household services, making a total of $413,260. For past noneconomic losses, they awarded $250,000 for physical pain and mental suffering, no damages for permanent disfigurement, and $250,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, bringing the total past noneconomic damages to $500,000.
For future economic losses, the jury awarded $350,000 for medical expenses, with no award for future lost earnings or loss of household services. For future noneconomic losses, they awarded $175,000 for physical pain and mental suffering, no damages for permanent disfigurement, and $10,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. This brought the future noneconomic damages to $185,000.
When combined, the total award to Langford reached $1,348,260, covering both the tangible costs of his treatment and the intangible suffering from his injuries.
Source: Special Verdict Form, San Joaquin County Superior Court; LinkedIn post by Tomas Ross.
Court Documents