LA City Settles for $11.8M After LAPD Officer Runs Red Light
Table of Contents
Case Background
James Thomas Simpson and Maria Luz Simpson resided in Chino, San Bernardino County, where the events central to this lawsuit occurred. The legal dispute involved the City of Los Angeles and one of its employees, Detective Alex Anthony Pozo. On August 22, 2020, Detective Pozo was on duty and operating a 2005 Honda CR-V owned by the City of Los Angeles.
Before initiating the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs submitted formal government claims for damages to the City on February 18, 2021. The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office communicated in March 2021 that an investigation was pending, but the City failed to formally accept or reject the claims within the statutory deadline. This inaction resulted in the claims being deemed rejected by operation of law. Consequently, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on July 27, 2021. The Defendants responded on October 25, 2021, denying liability and asserting various legal defenses and immunities.
Cause
The events leading to this lawsuit unfolded on August 22, 2020, in the City of Chino, San Bernardino County. James Thomas Simpson, a local resident, walked along a sidewalk, engaging in a routine pedestrian activity. At the same time, Defendant Alex Anthony Pozo, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, operated a 2005 Honda CR-V owned by the City of Los Angeles.
According to the legal complaint filed by the Plaintiffs, Officer Pozo drove the vehicle within the course and scope of his employment. The situation turned critical when Pozo allegedly failed to stop for a red light, a direct violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21453(a). This negligent act triggered a dangerous chain reaction. The officer's failure to obey the traffic signal caused a third-party driver to lose control of their vehicle. This loss of control sent the third-party vehicle careening toward the sidewalk where James Simpson walked, resulting in a collision with the pedestrian.
Injury
The collision resulted in catastrophic consequences for James Thomas Simpson. The impact caused severe injuries to his mind and body, including significant shock and damage to his nervous system. The lawsuit described these physical and mental injuries as causing "great physical, mental, and nervous pain and suffering." The harm extended beyond immediate physical trauma, affecting his everyday well-being, strength, and overall quality of life. The Plaintiffs asserted that the injuries were permanent and would require ongoing medical examination, treatment, and care.
The incident also inflicted distinct harm upon Maria Luz Simpson, James’s wife. Before the crash, the couple enjoyed a marital relationship defined by love, comfort, companionship, and support. The injuries James sustained deprived Maria of these essential aspects of their marriage. The complaint detailed this loss as a deprivation of her full benefit as a wife, specifically the loss of her husband's society, affection, and solace, a legal concept known as loss of consortium.
Damages Sought
James and Maria Simpson sought substantial financial compensation to address the multifaceted damages they incurred. Their demands included economic damages to cover past and future medical expenses, which were expected to be significant given the severity of the injuries. They also sought compensation for loss of earnings, as James was prevented from working and suffered a reduction in his future earning capacity.
Beyond financial losses, the Plaintiffs requested non-economic damages. These funds aimed to compensate for the intangible but profound suffering caused by the accident, including the physical pain, mental anguish, and the diminished quality of life James experienced. Maria Simpson sought specific damages for the loss of consortium, compensating her for the emotional and relational void created by her husband's incapacitation.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): James Thomas Simpson | Maria Luz Simpson
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Garo Mardirossian | Armen Akaragian
Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles | Los Angeles Police Department | Alex Anthony Pozo
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael N. Feuer | Kathleen A. | Scott Marcus | Dikran H. Sassounian | David L. Weisberg
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The legal strategy pursued by Mardirossian Akaragian LLP centered on two primary causes of action: Negligent Act or Omission of a Public Entity or Public Employee, and general Negligence.
The core of the Plaintiffs' argument rested on the principle of vicarious liability. They asserted that because Officer Pozo acted within the course and scope of his employment with the LAPD at the time of the crash, the City of Los Angeles bore legal responsibility for his actions under California Government Code Section 815.2. The legal team argued that Pozo owed a duty of care to all foreseeable persons, including pedestrians like James Simpson, to operate his vehicle safely and obey traffic laws.
The complaint alleged negligence per se, pointing to Pozo's specific violation of the California Vehicle Code by running a red light. The Plaintiffs contended that this statutory violation constituted a breach of duty that directly proxied the accident. Even though a third-party vehicle physically struck Mr. Simpson, the Plaintiffs argued that Pozo's initial negligence set the dangerous events in motion, making the City liable for the resulting catastrophe. They emphasized that the officer failed to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances.
Defense
The City of Los Angeles and Officer Pozo, represented by the City Attorney's office, responded with a general denial of all allegations. They disputed the Plaintiffs' version of events and raised several affirmative defenses to shield the municipality and the officer from liability.
A primary line of defense involved the concept of comparative negligence. The defense argued that James Simpson himself might have been negligent and that his own actions contributed to the incident. They asserted that if any damages were awarded, they should be reduced in proportion to the Plaintiff's own fault. Similarly, they pointed the finger at other parties, likely referencing the third-party driver involved in the chain-reaction crash. The City argued that the negligence of these other individuals directly caused the injuries, which should reduce or eliminate the City's financial responsibility.
The defense also invoked the doctrine of assumption of risk. They alleged that the Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the dangers involved in the situation and voluntarily assumed the risks associated with it. Procedural defenses were raised as well, with the City arguing that the claims might be barred by the statute of limitations or by a failure to strictly comply with the California Tort Claims Act.
Finally, the defense relied heavily on statutory immunities. They cited various sections of the California Government Code and Vehicle Code, arguing that public entities and employees often enjoy immunity from liability for certain discretionary acts or specific situations involving emergency vehicles or law enforcement activities.
Settlement
The complex litigation involving the severe injuries to James Simpson and the liability of the Los Angeles Police Department reached a significant resolution prior to a jury verdict. Despite the City's vigorous defense and the assertion of various immunities, the parties successfully negotiated a settlement to resolve the dispute.
The City of Los Angeles agreed to a monumental payment to end the lawsuit. The case concluded with a settlement amount of $11,800,000. This substantial sum reflected the severity of the injuries sustained by James Simpson, the long-term impact on his quality of life, and the loss of consortium suffered by his wife, Maria. The agreement effectively closed the chapter on the tragic events of August 22, 2020, providing the Simpson family with significant financial resources for their future medical care and living needs, while releasing the City and Officer Pozo from further liability regarding the accident.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com