Fresno Jury Awards $200K in Molina v. Skyview Negligence
Table of Contents
Case Background
This civil action originated from a motor vehicle collision that severely injured plaintiff Alfredo Molina. Mr. Molina had filed his lawsuit against Skyview Memorial Lawn, Inc. and other unidentified defendants (referred to as Does) in the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno. The case received the designation 23CECG02285 and centered on an incident that occurred on July 12, 2021, at a property in Fresno, California.
The core of the dispute focused on the funeral home and cemetery operator, Skyview Memorial Lawn, Inc., which allegedly bore responsibility for the incident. Molina claimed that agents or employees of the company negligently operated, managed, or maintained a vehicle or piece of equipment on the property, and this negligent conduct caused it to crash directly into him. The lawsuit had asserted that the company’s recklessness resulted in significant personal injuries and financial loss for Mr. Molina.
Cause
Mr. Molina’s primary claim was general negligence. He asserted that Skyview Memorial Lawn, Inc., through its agents or employees, had failed to exercise ordinary care when operating an unidentified motor vehicle or equipment. This failure, he argued, constituted negligence, and that negligence had directly and substantially caused the collision on the company’s premises. The complaint detailed that the negligent actions included carelessness in the ownership, driving, maintenance, and overall operation of the vehicle involved in the crash.
Injury
Alfredo Molina suffered serious personal injuries as a result of the collision. The complaint had indicated that the injuries were severe, causing Mr. Molina to incur substantial medical and related expenses. The harm created immediate financial burdens and prolonged pain for the plaintiff, which necessitated the filing of the lawsuit seeking compensation for the comprehensive toll the accident had taken on his life.
Damages Sought
The plaintiff, Alfredo Molina, sought extensive compensation for his injuries. He claimed general damages for the pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress he experienced because of the crash. He also claimed Special Damages, which specifically covered the tangible costs he had incurred, including:
Medical Expenses: Past and future costs related to his injuries.
Property Damage: Costs to repair or replace any personal property damaged in the collision.
Loss of Earnings: Past and future income he had lost or would lose due to his inability to work because of the injuries.
Incidental Expenses: Any other costs directly related to the defendant’s negligence.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case proceeded to trial before the Honorable Jonathan Skiles, culminating in the jury's special verdict on June 9, 2025.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Alfredo Molina
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Daniella Saeedian
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Neil Ghodadra | Orlando Micheli | Troy Mounts
Defendant(s): Skyview Memorial Lawn, Inc. (erroneously sued as Skyview Memorial Lawn) and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive
Counsel for Defendant(s): William W. Pinkley
Experts for Defendant(s): Dorajane Apuna-Grummer | William Hoddick | Matthew Sabatino
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The two sides presented sharply differing views on liability and compensation during the trial, which spanned several days of testimony.
Claims
Molina’s legal team argued that the evidence presented had clearly established the defendant’s responsibility. They showed that the negligent operation of a vehicle or equipment by Skyview Memorial Lawn’s employee had directly resulted in the crash, and that crash became the substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. Counsel passionately urged the jury to find the company accountable for its failure to maintain a safe environment and to award sufficient damages to cover the full spectrum of Mr. Molina’s economic and non-economic losses.
Defense
Skyview Memorial Lawn, Inc. launched a vigorous defense, using its Answer to the Complaint as a framework for its counterarguments. The defense team denied that the company had caused the collision or that its actions constituted negligence. Furthermore, the defense had raised multiple legal challenges, including the doctrine of Comparative Fault. They asserted that the plaintiff, Alfredo Molina, had himself contributed to the accident through his own carelessness, and that any damages awarded should be significantly reduced or eliminated entirely because of his own conduct.
Jury Verdict
On June 9, 2025, the jury in the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Alfredo Molina.
The jury specifically answered the key questions presented on the special verdict form:
The jury found that Skyview Memorial Lawn’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the traffic collision in the case.
The jury confirmed that the crash caused injury to Mr. Molina.
The jury then proceeded to determine the financial compensation for Mr. Molina’s injuries. The total damages the jury awarded were $200,000.00.
Court Documents