LAPD Vehicle Crash Settles for $15.25M with Disabled Man

Case Background

Rogelio Hernandez filed a personal injury lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and LAPD Detective Natalie Plascencia following a severe motor vehicle accident. The case, filed in June 2022, stemmed from an incident in which a vehicle driven by Detective Plascencia struck Hernandez as he was crossing the street in his wheelchair. The collision left Hernandez with multiple complex fractures and necessitated a lengthy hospitalization. The lawsuit asserted that Detective Plascencia was acting in the course of her employment when the crash occurred, making the City and the LAPD legally responsible for her actions. After over two years of litigation, the parties reached a substantial settlement.

Cause

Hernandez's lawsuit centered on a single, powerful cause of action: General Negligence.

The Complaint alleged that Detective Plascencia failed to operate her heavy GMC Terrain SUV safely and carefully. Hernandez’s legal team claimed she carelessly and negligently crashed into his wheelchair as he lawfully crossed the street in a designated crosswalk. This failure to exercise reasonable care directly caused the accident and Hernandez's catastrophic injuries. By naming both Detective Plascencia and the City, the lawsuit established that the City carried vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee, who was acting within the scope of her official duties as an LAPD Detective at the time of the collision.

Injury

The collision inflicted a devastating array of injuries on Rogelio Hernandez.

He suffered multiple bone fractures, specifically an olecranon fracture, an acetabular fracture, and a tibia fracture. The force of the impact also caused severe pain in his pelvis, neck, and back. Due to the critical nature of his injuries, paramedics transported Hernandez via ambulance to LAC+USC Hospital emergency room, where he remained for multiple days of hospitalization. Beyond the immediate physical damage, the lawsuit claimed Hernandez suffered emotional trauma, severe physical pain, permanent disability, and the need for ongoing medical care.

Damages Sought

Hernandez sought compensation far exceeding the Court’s jurisdictional minimum to account for the totality of his physical, emotional, and financial losses.

Hernandez sought extensive general damages, also known as non-economic damages, to compensate him for the profound pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and anxiety he endured because of the Defendant's negligence. These damages aimed to account for the non-monetary aspects of his life that the accident permanently diminished.

Special Damages: He also demanded substantial special damages, or economic damages, to cover all quantifiable financial losses. This category included past and future medical expenses, encompassing ambulance transport, surgery, hospitalization, and physical therapy. Crucially, the lawsuit sought recovery for his loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity for the rest of his life, along with compensation for the total destruction of his wheelchair in the collision.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit, filed in June 2022, immediately put the City of Los Angeles and Detective Plascencia on the defensive. The City's legal team filed its Answer in February 2023, denying the vast majority of the allegations. The case was assigned to Judge Daniel Crowley and proceeded through the arduous process of discovery, where both sides prepared for a contentious trial. A key initial event in the case was the Complaint’s mention that an LAPD officer confirmed the collision was captured on video, a piece of evidence that the Plaintiff’s counsel had previously requested but not yet received. This video evidence likely played a significant role in the pre-trial assessment of liability. Ultimately, the parties engaged in settlement discussions to avoid a public trial, which concluded with a major agreement.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Rogelio Hernandez, an individual

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Richard R. Rohde

Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles | Los Angeles Police Department (sued erroneously as a separate entity) | Detective Natalie Plascencia, an individual

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Hydee Feldstein Soto | David L. Weisberg | Scott Marcus | Dikran H. Sassounian

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Hernandez’s legal team emphasized that their client was a disabled man lawfully using a crosswalk when a government vehicle, driven by a detective, violently struck him. They argued that the detective’s failure to observe traffic or pedestrians amounted to gross negligence, which resulted in life-altering, severe bone fractures that severely limited Hernandez’s mobility and future independence. Their strategy revolved around proving clear liability through the available video evidence and demonstrating the permanent and expensive toll the accident took on Hernandez’s life.

Defense

The defense for the City of Los Angeles and Detective Plascencia, in their official Answer, denied any negligence on the part of the City employee. They likely claimed that the accident was unavoidable, or that Mr. Hernandez may have been partially at fault for the collision. Crucially, the defense also raised several affirmative defenses, including the failure to mitigate damages (meaning Hernandez allegedly did not properly seek treatment or recovery) and arguing that any claimed damages were barred or reduced by laws protecting government entities. Their core argument focused on minimizing the City’s financial exposure by challenging the extent of the detective’s fault and the true cost of Hernandez’s injuries.

Court Settlement

Before the case could move to a contentious jury trial, all parties reached a conclusive settlement. The Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Request for Dismissal in September 2024, signalling that the entire matter had been resolved.

The City of Los Angeles agreed to pay Rogelio Hernandez a massive sum to conclude the litigation. This non-confidential settlement totalled $15,250,000. The large payment reflected the severity of Hernandez’s injuries, the strong evidence of the City employee’s negligence in the crosswalk, and the high cost of lifelong medical care for a permanently disabled Plaintiff. By agreeing to this sum, the City avoided the unpredictable risk of a jury verdict, which often awards even higher amounts in cases involving severe injuries caused by government workers.

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