Jury Finds Negligence But No Causation in Oakley Car Crash

Case Background

A California jury found Defendant Rowyn De Witt negligent in a motor vehicle accident case but determined that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff Ginger Conrad. The verdict resulted in no damages awarded to the Plaintiff after a trial that began on October 27, 2025.

Cause

The lawsuit arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 4, 2020, on Cypress Avenue in the City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. Ginger Conrad filed the complaint on April 27, 2022, alleging that Rowyn Mercedes De Witt negligently operated a motor vehicle and caused the accident that injured her.

The complaint named three Defendants: Rowyn Mercedes De Witt as the driver, along with James De Witt and Lea McLaughlin De Witt as the vehicle owners who permitted the operation of the motor vehicle. Conrad alleged that Rowyn De Witt acted as an agent and employee of the other Defendants within the scope of that agency relationship.

Injury

Conrad claimed she suffered personal injuries as a result of the June 2020 collision. According to the complaint, she incurred hospital and medical expenses for treatment of her injuries. The Plaintiff also alleged she experienced wage loss from missed work and a loss of earning capacity due to the accident. Additionally, Conrad sought compensation for general damages including physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress.

Damages Sought

Conrad filed the case as an unlimited civil action, meaning the damages sought exceeded $25,000. She requested compensatory damages according to proof at trial for past economic losses including lost earnings, future economic losses including loss of earning capacity, past noneconomic losses covering physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress, as well as future noneconomic losses for the same categories of harm. The Plaintiff also sought property damage compensation and loss of use of property.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff: Ginger Conrad

· Counsel for Plaintiff: Craig M. Boeger

· Experts for Plaintiff: Edgar Angelone | Maria Brady | Phillip Allman | Bahram Ravani

Defendants: Rowyn Mercedes De Witt | James De Witt | Lea McLaughlin De Witt

· Counsel for Defendants: Ashley Colivas

Claims

Motor Vehicle Negligence: Conrad alleged that Rowyn De Witt operated a motor vehicle in a negligent manner on June 4, 2020, and that this negligent conduct was the legal and proximate cause of her injuries and damages. The complaint identified Rowyn De Witt as the vehicle operator, while James De Witt and Lea McLaughlin De Witt were named as vehicle owners who permitted the operation. Conrad claimed the Defendants who owned the vehicle were liable because Rowyn De Witt drove with their permission.

Vicarious Liability: The Plaintiff also pursued claims against the vehicle owners based on theories of agency and employment, alleging that Rowyn De Witt acted within the scope of agency when operating the vehicle. The complaint named Does 1 through 20 as additional potential Defendants whose identities were unknown at the time of filing.

Defense

All three Defendants filed their answer on May 19, 2023, through counsel provided by State Farm Insurance. They denied all allegations in the complaint and asserted that the Plaintiff was not damaged in any amount.

Comparative Negligence: The Defendants argued that if Conrad suffered any loss, damage, or injury, it was proximately caused and contributed to by her own failure to conduct herself as a reasonably prudent person. They contended her recovery should be barred, diminished, or reduced to the extent her damages were attributable to her own negligence.

Failure to State a Cause of Action: The defense maintained that Conrad failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a valid cause of action against the Defendants.

Apportionment: The Defendants argued that any damages were proximately caused by persons other than the named Defendants, including the Doe Defendants, and that liability should be apportioned according to relative degrees of fault.

Failure to Mitigate: The defense also claimed Conrad failed to mitigate her damages, which should reduce any recovery.

Jury Verdict

On November 6, 2025, the jury returned a special verdict form with mixed findings. In response to the first question, the jury found that Defendant Rowyn De Witt was negligent, answering "Yes" to the negligence inquiry. However, when asked whether Rowyn De Witt's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff Ginger Conrad, the jury answered "No."

Because the jury determined that the Defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm, the special verdict form instructed jurors to stop answering questions and not proceed to the damages section. As a result, the jury never reached the damages calculations for past economic loss, future economic loss, past noneconomic loss, or future noneconomic loss. All damage categories remained blank on the verdict form, and the total damages awarded was zero.

The presiding juror signed and dated the verdict form on November 6, 2025. The case proceeded to trial approximately three and a half years after the complaint was filed and more than five years after the accident occurred. The trial began on October 27, 2025, before Judge Jill Fannin in Department 21 of the Contra Costa County Superior Court.

While the jury acknowledged that Rowyn De Witt acted negligently, the failure to establish causation meant the Plaintiff could not recover any damages. This outcome represents a defense victory despite the negligence finding, as the critical element of proximate causation was not proven to the jury's satisfaction.

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