Jury Awards $1.18M to Crash Victim in LA Truck Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
A Los Angeles County jury delivered a final judgment in the personal injury case of Vincent Carlos Hamlin against the commercial trucking company 562 Express Inc. and its employee driver, Andrew Eleazar Menendez. The lawsuit, filed on September 9, 2024, stemmed from a motor vehicle collision that occurred earlier that year. Hamlin had claimed that the Defendants’ negligent operation of a commercial vehicle led directly to a major accident, which caused him significant physical injury and financial loss. The trial concluded in late September 2025, when the jury found the Defendants responsible for the crash and ordered them to pay substantial damages.
Cause
The central cause of action in the complaint was General Negligence, arising from a motor vehicle accident. Vincent Carlos Hamlin alleged that the Defendants the driver Andrew Eleazar Menendez and his employer, 562 Express Inc. had carelessly and unlawfully operated the commercial truck. The complaint specifically pointed to violations of the California Vehicle Code, including sections relating to the duty of drivers to exercise ordinary care and proper signaling during lane changes or turns. Hamlin asserted that the driver’s failure to abide by these laws and exercise necessary caution had been the direct and legal cause of the collision, which then caused all of his subsequent injuries and damages. Furthermore, Hamlin had also pursued a claim of Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision against the corporate Defendant, alleging that 562 Express Inc. was directly at fault for employing a driver who caused the crash.
Injury
Following the accident, Hamlin reported suffering serious, debilitating injuries. The complaint described that he had experienced a variety of physical and psychological injuries, including pain, suffering, emotional distress, and disfigurement. These conditions required extensive medical attention. Hamlin’s attorneys presented evidence that the injuries created a major impact on his life, causing physical impairment and limiting his ability to participate in normal daily activities. The legal proceedings focused heavily on establishing the full extent of both his immediate and long-term medical needs due to the crash.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff’s legal team had requested judgment against the Defendants for all damages that a trial could prove. Since this was an unlimited civil case, the amount sought exceeded $25,000, though the specific total was left to the discretion of the jury. Hamlin requested damages in two broad categories:
Economic Damages: This included full compensation for all past and future medical expenses, covering costs for doctors, physical therapy, and any long-term care required for his injuries. It also covered all past and future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, claiming that the injuries had prevented him from working and would continue to affect his income potential.
Non-Economic Damages: Hamlin sought a large sum for his past and future general damages, which included compensation for the intangible hardships he endured, such as physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety, and emotional distress.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The trial began on September 9, 2025, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse, with Judge Michael P. Vicencia presiding. Both sides presented detailed evidence and witness testimony to the seated jury before final arguments were given.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Vincent Carlos Hamlin
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Brian J. Kim, Esq. | Maureen Hennessey, Esq. | Kieran Doherty | Christopher Kim
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Jeffrey Bonsall | Vijay Gupta | Babak Samimi
Defendant(s): 562 Express Inc. | Andrew Eleazar Menendez.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): John P. Yasuda, Esq.
· Experts For Defendant(s): Mohammad Atarod | Scott Forman
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Hamlin’s legal team had consistently argued that driver Andrew Eleazar Menendez, while acting in the scope of his employment for 562 Express Inc., drove carelessly and caused the collision. They presented the negligence claim to show that Menendez’s actions, such as an improper turn or failure to check his mirrors, fell below the expected standard of a reasonable driver. The attorneys maintained that 562 Express Inc. was also vicariously liable for the actions of its employee and bore direct liability for its own alleged failures in managing its driving staff. Their entire presentation focused on proving the driver’s fault and documenting the severity and permanence of Hamlin's injuries.
Defense
The defense counsel for 562 Express Inc. and Menendez strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing in their answer to the complaint. They asserted that the Defendants had operated the vehicle with due care and that the responsibility for the accident lay with other parties. Their core argument was a denial of negligence, followed by a claim that Hamlin's own actions contributed to the crash, an assertion known as comparative fault. The defense also challenged the extent of Hamlin's injuries, arguing that some of his damages were either exaggerated or the result of prior conditions, not the accident in question. They had requested that the Court reduce any potential damages found by the jury based on this alleged contributory fault.
Jury Verdict
After hearing nearly three weeks of testimony and final arguments, the twelve-person jury returned a special verdict on September 17, 2025. The jury found that both Defendants Andrew Eleazar Menendez and 562 Express Inc. were negligent and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Vincent Carlos Hamlin.
The jury rejected the Defendants’ comparative fault claim, assigning zero percentage of responsibility for the harm to the Plaintiff. The jury assigned 100% of the responsibility for the crash and the resulting harm to the Defendants.
The jury meticulously itemized Hamlin’s total damages, which amounted to a gross total of $1,183,163.44. Since the jury found the Defendants 100% at fault, the total award stood as calculated:
The breakdown of the damages was as follows:
Past Medical Expenses: The jury awarded $131,650.00 for all medical bills incurred up to the time of the verdict.
Future Medical Expenses: The jury awarded $317,805.00 to cover the estimated cost of all necessary future medical care.
Past Loss of Earnings: The jury awarded $58,708.44 for wages Hamlin lost from the time of the accident until the conclusion of the trial.
Past non-economic damages: The jury awarded $75,000, for physical pain, mental suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
Future Non-Economic damages including Loss of Earnings/Earning Capacity: The jury awarded $600,000.00 to compensate Hamlin for his inability to earn a living in the future due to the permanent effects of his injuries.
Total Damages Awarded: $1,183,163.44
The trial judge, the Honorable Michael P. Vicencia, entered the final Judgment on Special Verdict on October 23, 2025, formally adopting the jury’s findings and ordering the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the total sum of $1,183,163.44, plus post-judgment interest and Court costs.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com