Fresno Jury Awards $970K in Childcare Negligence Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
A Fresno County jury returned a substantial verdict against a local childcare provider and an employee in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a minor, Norman Martin III. The case centered on a personal injury that occurred while the child was under the care of Wee Town Learning Center and its staff member, Charlene Burch. The lawsuit, officially filed on August 11, 2023, claimed that the negligence of the Defendants directly led to the injuries the young Plaintiff sustained. The trial reached its conclusion on October 29, 2025, with the jury finding both the daycare center and its employee at fault.
Cause
The core of the legal action was a claim of negligence and negligence per se meaning a violation of safety laws that automatically established a breach of duty. The complaint asserted that the Defendants, Wee Town Learning Center and Charlene Burch, failed in their duty to properly supervise, monitor, and care for Norman Martin III. The Plaintiff's legal team argued that the childcare providers did not adhere to mandated safety regulations set forth by the California Code of Regulations, specifically those pertaining to supervision standards. This failure, the Plaintiff claimed, created a dangerous environment that resulted in the child's harm. The complaint specifically cited sections of the state's code that detail requirements for childcare operations, claiming that the Defendants had breached these rules, which constituted an automatic finding of negligence.
Injury
While the official Court documents did not specify the exact nature of the incident or injury, the severity became clear through the damages sought and ultimately awarded. The injuries sustained by the young Plaintiff were significant enough to require both extensive past and future medical care. Furthermore, the damages included claims for profound non-economic losses, such as physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, and emotional distress, indicating a lasting and serious impact on the child's life.
Damages Sought
In their initial complaint, the Plaintiff’s attorneys requested general and special damages in amounts to be determined by the evidence presented at trial. These claims encompassed the full scope of the child’s harm, including compensation for medical costs, lost earning capacity, and the substantial non-economic pain and suffering caused by the Defendants’ alleged negligence. The final verdict confirmed that the jury considered the full range of losses, from direct financial costs to subjective emotional and physical suffering.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The legal battle commenced with the Plaintiff, Norman Martin III, by and through his legal representative, Guardian ad Litem Norman E. Martin, formally filing the complaint. Wee Town Learning Center and Charlene Burch responded with a general denial of all allegations. They asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims lacked merit and that their childcare center and employee had exercised reasonable care at all times. The Defendants argued that any harm suffered by the child had resulted from causes other than their actions or inactions.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Norman Martin III, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem | Norman E. Martin.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Neama Rahmani, Esq. | Houman Sayaghi, Esq. | Antonia Holguin, Esq.
Defendant(s): Wee Town Learning Center | Charlene Burch
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Mandy L. Sims, Esq.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiff’s attorneys framed their central argument around a simple yet critical failure: inadequate supervision. They maintained that the daycare, through its employee Charlene Burch, had an unavoidable legal and professional obligation to maintain a safe environment. The defense, the Plaintiff’s legal team insisted, simply failed to meet this standard, resulting in the child's preventable injury. The argument for negligence per se provided a strong legal foundation, claiming that the documented violations of state safety codes automatically proved a breach of duty, leaving the jury only to determine causation and damages.
Defense
The defense team for Wee Town Learning Center and Charlene Burch mounted a vigorous denial of fault. They argued that they had upheld all necessary standards of care required for a licensed childcare facility. Their answer to the complaint included several affirmative defenses, asserting that the injury was not caused by any negligent act of the Defendants. Furthermore, they contended that the child’s parent or guardian may have contributed to the harm through their own lack of care, or that the injury arose from an unavoidable accident not attributable to the daycare’s supervision. Essentially, the defense’s position was that the daycare had followed protocol and the circumstances surrounding the injury did not meet the legal definition of negligence.
Jury Verdict
After hearing weeks of testimony and argument, the jury returned a verdict firmly siding with the Plaintiff on 29th October 2025. The verdict form revealed that the jury carefully considered the accountability of the Defendants in two separate findings.
First, the jury concluded that Wee Town Learning Center’s employee, Charlene Burch, was negligent and that her negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Norman Martin III.
Second, the jury similarly concluded that Wee Town Learning Center itself was negligent and that its negligence was also a substantial factor in causing the harm. The jury thereby established a shared line of responsibility between the individual staff member and the facility that employed her.
The jury then proceeded to calculate the total damages sustained by Norman Martin III, delivering a verdict that approached the $1 million mark.
The jury’s damages award broke down as follows:
Past Economic Damages: The jury awarded $90,146.62 for past medical expenses the family incurred prior to the trial.
Future Economic Loss: Recognizing the ongoing impact of the injury, the jury awarded $180,728.17 for future medical expenses and care the child will require.
Past Noneconomic Loss: For the physical pain, mental suffering, disfigurement, and emotional distress the child had already endured, the jury awarded $300,000.
Future Noneconomic Loss: Considering the long-term prognosis, the jury awarded $400,000 for the future pain and suffering the child would face.
In total, the jury determined that the full, combined economic and non-economic damages that Norman Martin III suffered amounted to $970,874.79. The Court ultimately issued a judgment based on this finding of negligence against both Defendants and the determined monetary damages.