LA Jury Awards $15K in Freeway Rear-End Crash Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
On May 28, 2025, a Los Angeles jury delivered a verdict in a civil case that arose from a motor vehicle crash that had occurred more than two years earlier. The case involved Plaintiffs Jose M. Diaz and Blanca Estela Flores Cortes, who sued Defendant Vladimir Babenkov, a driver, and his employer, Solve, Inc.. The Plaintiffs alleged that Babenkov's reckless driving caused the collision and their subsequent injuries.
Cause
According to the complaint, on April 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs, Jose M. Diaz and Blanca Estela Flores Cortes, were in a 2007 Toyota SV on the southbound 101 Freeway near Los Angeles. Their vehicle had come to a complete stop when a 2014 Mitsubishi truck, driven by Defendant Vladimir Babenkov, violently rear-ended it. The Plaintiffs' complaint stated that Babenkov was driving the truck at an "unsafe manner for traffic conditions" and at an "unreasonable rate of speed". They contended that Babenkov had also been following their vehicle too closely. The Plaintiffs' legal team asserted that Babenkov’s actions violated California Vehicle Code §§ 22350 and 21703, which outline laws for safe speeds and following distances.
Injury
The collision caused both Jose M. Diaz and Blanca Estela Flores Cortes to sustain injuries and damages. The complaint listed a range of harms that included medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. The Plaintiffs also sought compensation for general damages and a loss of earning capacity.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought to recover compensatory damages, with the final amount to be determined during the trial. The lawsuit also named Solve, Inc., Babenkov's employer, as a Defendant, alleging it was negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of its employees.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The lawsuit, filed on November 8, 2023, progressed to trial after both sides presented their arguments.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Jose M. Diaz | Blanca Estela Flores Cortes
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Emineh Issaian | Narinyan Martin | Zograbian Erik
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Stepan Kasimian | Andrew Morris
Defendant(s): Vladimir Babenkov | Solve, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Gina Y. Kandarian-Stein
Experts for Defendant(s): Barry I Ludwig | Arya Nick Shamie
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The trial revolved around the Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and the Defendants' counterarguments. Both sides had the opportunity to present their cases to the jury.
Claims
The Plaintiffs’ legal team had accused Vladimir Babenkov of negligence in the operation of his vehicle. They contended he had been driving too fast and too close to the Plaintiffs’ car, which caused the collision. The Plaintiffs' legal team also had asserted a separate claim against Babenkov's employer, Solve, Inc., for Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, Supervision, and Entrustment of a Motor Vehicle. They argued that Solve, Inc. had failed to perform adequate due diligence to determine if Babenkov was fit to drive the company truck. They claimed Solve, Inc.’s negligence in entrusting the vehicle to an "incompetent" or "unfit" driver was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs' injuries.
Defense
In their official response to the complaint, the Defendants had denied all allegations and stated that the Plaintiffs had not suffered any damages due to any action or omission by the Defendants or their employees. The Defendants' legal team had raised several affirmative defenses, including that the Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a valid cause of action and that the statute of limitations had expired. They also asserted that any injuries the Plaintiffs may have sustained were aggravated because of their own failure to mitigate damages, for example, by not wearing a seat belt. The defense further contended that the Plaintiffs' own negligence had contributed to the incident. They also alleged that the Plaintiffs had caused the accident by making a "sudden stop" without justification and that other unnamed parties might have been at fault.
Jury Verdict
On May 28, 2025, after deliberating, the jury reached a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs, Jose M. Diaz and Blanca Estela Flores Cortes, on all counts. The jury concluded that Vladimir Babenkov's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to both Plaintiffs. The jury awarded damages to Plaintiff Blanca Estela Flores Cortes. She received $10,135 for past economic losses, specifically for medical expenses. She also received $5,000 for past non-economic losses, which included physical pain and mental suffering. The total amount awarded to Blanca Estela Flores Cortes was $15,135.
The jury did not award any damages to Plaintiff Jose M. Diaz. The jury's verdict form indicated that even though Babenkov's negligence was a substantial factor in his harm, the jury ultimately did not find that he had incurred any damages.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com