Duran v. LA County Sheriff: $60,000 Car Accident Settlement

Case Background

Ignacio Duran and Geneva Duran found themselves in the middle of a legal dispute after a violent car accident changed their lives in early 2023. The Durans had been driving through Arcadia, California, when a vehicle operated by a county employee struck them at an intersection. Seeking accountability for the physical and financial toll of the crash, the couple filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Alhambra Courthouse of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in October 2023. They aimed their legal challenge at several government entities, claiming that the driver had acted recklessly while on duty. The case primarily focused on whether the government was responsible for the driver's failure to follow basic traffic laws, which resulted in significant injuries to both Ignacio and Geneva.

Cause

The lawsuit originated from a collision that occurred on or about February 20, 2023. Ignacio and Geneva Duran had been traveling westbound on Huntington Drive near Sunset Boulevard. At the same time, Anthony Trinh, an employee of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, was driving northbound on Sunset Boulevard. The Durans alleged that Trinh entered the intersection against a red light. He had crossed the intersection without caution and in an unsafe manner, which caused his vehicle to violently collide with the Durans' car.

Injury

Both Plaintiffs reported sustaining various physical injuries because of the high-impact crash. Beyond the immediate physical trauma, the Durans claimed they suffered from a range of ongoing issues. These injuries required hospital visits and led to significant medical expenses. The crash also impacted their daily lives and ability to function as they had before the incident.

Damages Sought

In their complaint, the Durans sought compensatory damages for several types of losses. They requested reimbursement for their mounting hospital and medical bills. Additionally, they claimed they had lost wages and faced a reduced capacity to earn money in the future. The couple also sought general damages for their pain and suffering, as well as compensation for the damage to their vehicle and the loss of its use. They asked for the total amount of damages to be determined "according to proof" during the legal proceedings.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The legal battle centered on the "standard of care" expected of government employees while operating motor vehicles. The Durans argued that the public entities were statutorily liable for the actions of their employee under California law.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Ignacio Duran | Geneva Duran

· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Andrew M. Morrow

· Counsel for Defendant(s): Tomas A. Guterres | Redford Jonathan

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Counsel for the Durans argued that Anthony Trinh had operated the county vehicle with negligence, carelessness, and recklessness. They emphasized that the public entities had entrusted the vehicle to Trinh, who then failed to follow basic safety protocols at a busy intersection. The legal team pointed to California law which makes public entities liable for injuries caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by an employee.

The County of Los Angeles filed a robust defense. They denied every allegation in the complaint and argued that the County was not responsible for the accident. The defense suggested that the Durans’ own negligence might have contributed to the collision and that the damages they claimed were exaggerated or caused by other factors.

Claims

The Durans brought two primary causes of action:

Motor Vehicle Negligence: This claim focused on the physical operation of the vehicle, asserting that the driver's failure to stop at a red light was the direct cause of the accident.
General Negligence: This broader claim argued that the Defendants were responsible for the injuries because they had poorly managed and supervised their employee and the use of the vehicle.

Defense

The County presented 39 different affirmative defenses to shield itself from liability. They argued that the driver might have been exempt from certain traffic rules if he was operating an authorized emergency vehicle in pursuit of a suspect. They also claimed that Ignacio Duran had violated the Vehicle Code himself, which made him the sole or contributing cause of the crash. Furthermore, the defense asserted that the government was immune from certain types of liability under state law.

Settlement

As the case moved toward a potential trial, the parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the matter outside of Court. By 16th April 2025, the legal teams notified the Court that they had reached an agreement to settle the entire case with Settlement Amount: $60,000.

This settlement concluded the legal journey for Ignacio and Geneva Duran. By accepting this payment, the couple agreed to dismiss all claims against the County of Los Angeles and the other named Defendants. The settlement allowed both sides to avoid the uncertainty and expense of a jury trial while providing the Durans with compensation for the injuries and damages they had suffered since the 2023 accident.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com