Horihata v. City of LA: $9.5 Million Car Crash Settlement

Case Background

A legal battle that began with a devastating traffic collision in Los Angeles concluded with a significant settlement agreement, preventing a long jury trial. The case, filed by Plaintiffs Jean Yuna Horihata and Mark Rappaport, claimed negligence against a driver and the City of Los Angeles, alleging a dangerous situation had existed on a public roadway. The Plaintiffs first filed their suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, setting the stage for a high-stakes litigation over life-altering injuries and government responsibility.

Cause

The core of the dispute centered on a motor vehicle collision that involved Plaintiff Jean Horihata. Plaintiffs claimed that driver Luis Gaytan Hernandez had operated his vehicle negligently, leading directly to the severe accident. Crucially, the suit also targeted the City of Los Angeles and other public entities, arguing that a dangerous condition on public property had contributed to or caused the crash. The Plaintiffs asserted that the government Defendants knew or should have known about the hazardous conditions and had failed to take appropriate steps to either warn the public or fix the problem.

Injury

Following the crash, Jean Horihata suffered catastrophic and life-altering injuries. While the exact medical details remained confidential during the proceedings, Court filings detailed extensive and permanent physical harm requiring ongoing care. Plaintiff Mark Rappaport, who was presumably Horihata's spouse or partner, also became a Plaintiff in the case. He claimed a loss of consortium, a legal term signifying the loss of companionship, support, and relationship benefits that he had experienced due to the severity of Horihata’s injuries and permanent change in her condition.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiffs sought substantial damages, demanding that the Defendants cover the full extent of the harm caused. They asked for general damages, often described as compensation for pain and suffering. Additionally, they sought special damages to cover the extensive economic losses that the collision had created. These damages included the cost of hospital and professional medical care, lost past and future earnings, and compensation for being deprived of the financial support and assistance that Jean Horihata had previously provided. Given the nature of the claimed injuries, the total amount of damages sought, based on proof presented to the Court, had run into the tens of millions of dollars.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit, officially known as Jean Yuna Horihata, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., case number 22STCV04523, involved multiple parties and several high-profile legal teams. The defense mounted a vigorous response, denying all claims of wrongdoing, both on the part of the private driver and the governmental agencies.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Jean Yuna Horihata | Mark Rappaport

Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Brian J. Panish | David Rudorfer | Jonathan Howell

Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles | Luis Gaytan Hernandez | other public entities.

Counsel for Defendant(s):  Mcguire Steven Michael | Pasarow Stephen Charles Esq. | Pelch Manal Hanna | Collinson Lisa D. Esq. | Tracy L. Hughes | Waterkotte Grant Daniel

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs maintained that the tragic outcome had resulted from the Defendants' failures. They argued that driver Luis Hernandez had failed to operate his vehicle with the necessary care, leading to the initial impact. Furthermore, they asserted that the City of Los Angeles and its related entities had neglected their duty to maintain a safe roadway, creating a hazardous environment that either contributed to or exacerbated the events of the day. Their argument essentially boiled down to an unacceptable combination of private carelessness and public neglect.

Defense

The defense team, representing both the private driver and the government, issued a sweeping denial of the Plaintiffs' claims. Driver Hernandez’s attorneys argued that their client had not operated his vehicle negligently. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office fiercely defended the City, contending that the roadway had been reasonably safe and that the City's actions had not created a dangerous condition. They asserted that the collision resulted from factors outside of government control, and they had no prior notice of any alleged defect that would have warranted repair. They also raised standard defenses, arguing that the Plaintiffs themselves had been comparatively negligent.

Settlement

Before the case proceeded to a lengthy trial, which had been scheduled to begin, all parties reached a confidential agreement to resolve the dispute. The Notice of Settlement of Entire Case was subsequently filed with the Court, confirming the resolution.

While the parties did not publicly disclose the terms of the agreement, the settlement was substantial. The Defendants paid the Plaintiffs $9,500,000 to resolve all claims and dismiss the case entirely. This final settlement amount was a significant figure, underscoring the severity of Jean Horihata’s injuries and the considerable risk the Defendants faced had the case gone before a jury. The money was intended to cover all of the Plaintiffs’ claims, including Horihata's long-term care needs, lost income, and the pain and suffering she and Rappaport had endured. The agreement effectively closed the book on the lawsuit, bringing the legal proceedings to a definitive conclusion and providing the Plaintiffs with the necessary resources to manage the consequences of the catastrophic crash.

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