California Verdict News

$45 Million Settlement After FlyAway Airport Shuttle Strikes Mother and Son in Los Angeles Crosswalk

A Los Angeles trial attorney secured a $45 million trial settlement after a FlyAway airport shuttle bus struck a mother and her adult son as they crossed a marked crosswalk in Los Angeles, leaving the woman with catastrophic brain injuries. The case resolved on March 4, 2025, during trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court, shortly before closing arguments. The result stands as a significant outcome in Los Angeles pedestrian injury litigation and raises pointed questions about municipal liability when cities outsource transportation services.What Happened on August 3, 2023 According to evidence presented at trial, Armida Lincome, 58, and her son Christofer Bishop, 29, were crossing a marked crosswalk with an active walk signal when they were struck by a FlyAway airport shuttle bus operated by driver Douglas Herrera. The lawsuit alleged that Herrera made an unsafe left turn and failed to yield to the pedestrians, who had the legal right of way. Lincome suffered catastrophic brain injuries as a result of the impact. Bishop was also struck in the collision. The case was filed as Armida Lincome and Christofer Bishop v. Four-Season Travel LLC, Douglas Herrera, 9139249 Canada Inc., Bus.com US LLC, Bus.com Leasing LLC, and the City of Los Angeles.The City Could Not Escape Liability One of the central legal questions in the case was whether the City of Los Angeles could shield itself from liability by pointing to the private contractor operating the FlyAway shuttle service. The court rejected that argument. According to plaintiff's counsel, the City could not delegate away its responsibility because operating the airport shuttle is a nondelegable duty under California law. That doctrine holds certain public obligations to a standard that cannot be transferred to a third party, even through a contract. "The City of Los Angeles could not avoid liability because operating the airport shuttle is a nondelegable duty," said Christopher Montes de Oca, lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs. That legal theory proved decisive. Of the $45 million total, approximately $40 million was paid by insurers for the City of Los Angeles, while $5 million came from insurers for Four-Season Travel LLC and the driver.How the Case Resolved The plaintiffs presented their full case at trial before the matter resolved through mediated settlement. According to reports, the parties reached the $45 million agreement shortly before closing arguments were scheduled to be delivered. Trial settlements of this kind, reached after evidence has been presented but before a jury deliberates, often reflect the strength of the plaintiff's case at the close of evidence. Defendants in this posture have seen the full presentation and are weighing their exposure against a final verdict.About Lead Trial Counsel Christopher Montes de Oca Christopher Montes de Oca is a Los Angeles-based plaintiff trial attorney at the Law Offices of Christopher Montes de Oca. He was named Rising Star Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA), the nation's largest local association of plaintiff trial attorneys. He has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America for Personal Injury Litigation and selected to Super Lawyers, where he ranks among the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California. He also holds an AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating and has been named Whittier Bar Association Member of the Year. This $45 million result adds to a record that already included a nationally recognized eight-figure jury verdict ranked among the Top 50 Car Accident Verdicts and Top 100 Personal Injury Verdicts in the United States for that year. Plaintiff attorneys with records like this one can display their verdicts and settlements publicly on Major Verdict, where the platform lets trial results speak directly to prospective clients and referring attorneys.What This Settlement Signals for Pedestrian Cases Involving Public Transit Pedestrian cases involving government-affiliated transportation tend to be complex. They typically involve questions of sovereign immunity, the scope of public duty, and whether a private operator's negligence can be attributed back to the contracting government entity. The nondelegable duty theory used here has significant implications for plaintiffs in similar cases across California and beyond. When a municipality operates a public transportation service through a private contractor and a pedestrian is seriously injured, this outcome demonstrates that the city's involvement does not disappear simply because the driver's paycheck comes from a private company. For plaintiff attorneys handling pedestrian injury cases in California, this settlement reinforces the value of naming and pursuing the government entity early in litigation, particularly when the transportation function is one the public would reasonably associate with the city itself. Attorneys who track verdict and settlement trends by case type and jurisdiction can browse results across all 50 states at Major Verdict's latest verdict news.Conclusion The $45 million settlement in Lincome and Bishop v. Four-Season Travel LLC et al. reflects what can happen when a plaintiff's trial team builds a complete case and presses a city that cannot legally sidestep responsibility for its transportation services. Armida Lincome crossed a crosswalk with the light in her favor. The jury would have heard that. The city settled before it had to find out how much that fact was worth. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured as a pedestrian, verdicts and settlements like this one show what juries and defendants are willing to reckon with when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.

$110 Million to Family of 100-Year-Old Woman Who Died After Wandering Out of Assisted Living Facility

A Sacramento jury has awarded $110 million to the family of Mildred Hernandez, a 100-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease who wandered out of an assisted living facility in the early morning hours and died from hypothermia. The verdict, returned against Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living and Memory Care, stands as a powerful rebuke of what the family's attorneys described as a pattern of understaffing and willful indifference to resident safety. "She was like superwoman," Hernandez's daughter, Roberta Hernandez Tapia, said of her mother. "She kind of did it all and raised four girls. Family was super important." The family trusted Greenhaven Estates to keep her safe. According to their account, it failed her in the worst possible way.What Happened in February 2019 The events unfolded before dawn on a cold February morning in 2019. According to attorneys for the Hernandez family, the last documented check on Mildred Hernandez occurred around 1 a.m. Sometime before 6 am, she was found unresponsive outside the facility, beyond an exit door that locked automatically behind her. Outdoor temperatures were approximately 38 degrees. Attorneys say the evidence suggests she was outside for several hours. She was transported to a hospital but did not survive. The cause of death was hypothermia.Staff Knew She Was a Wandering Risk At the center of the family's case was a troubling allegation: staff at Greenhaven Estates had known for months before Hernandez's death that she was wandering the facility at night. "The staff knew for a period of months leading up to this day that Mildred was wandering in the middle of the night," said Ed Dudensing of Dudensing Law, who represented the Hernandez family at trial. "And there's nothing documented about it. No one was told about it." Hernandez had been formally identified as a wandering risk due to her Alzheimer's diagnosis. Attorneys argued that despite this, the facility took no meaningful steps to protect her.Profits Over Safety: Sacramento Assisted Living Negligence on Trial The Hernandez family's legal team argued that the companies responsible for Greenhaven Estates placed financial considerations above the wellbeing of vulnerable residents. The core allegation was that the facility was chronically understaffed, and that this understaffing created the conditions that allowed Hernandez to leave undetected and spend hours in freezing temperatures without anyone noticing she was gone. The jury agreed. The $110 million verdict reflected the jury's findings on behalf of a family that has spent years seeking accountability for what they describe as a preventable death. Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living and Memory Care has since rebranded and now operates under the name Spanish Vines Assisted Living and Memory Care, according to attorney Ed Dudensing.A Family's Hope After an Irreplaceable Loss The Hernandez family has been measured in how they've spoken about the outcome. They have not framed the verdict as a victory, but as something more complicated: a result that cannot undo what happened, but might protect others. "The family said the verdict cannot bring their mother back, but they hope it will lead to stronger protections for seniors living in assisted living facilities," according to ABC10 Sacramento, which covered the trial. Another daughter captured the grief the family continues to carry: "She's left a hole in our hearts, and the grandchildren. We all loved her so much." The case is a reminder that California assisted living facilities bear a serious legal and moral obligation to residents with cognitive impairments. For families navigating these decisions, verdicts like this one reveal what can happen when that obligation goes unmet.What This Verdict Means for Elder Abuse Cases in California A $110 million jury award in an elder abuse and wrongful death case is significant by any measure. It signals that California juries are willing to impose substantial accountability on assisted living operators when evidence shows a pattern of neglect rather than an isolated incident. Elder abuse litigation has increasingly focused on corporate ownership structures and staffing decisions as root causes of harm, rather than the actions of individual caregivers. The Hernandez case, with its documented months of known wandering risk and no paper trail to show the facility acted on that knowledge, fit squarely within that framework. For plaintiff attorneys who handle elder abuse and nursing home cases, this verdict adds to a growing body of results demonstrating that California courts take these claims seriously. Attorneys can track verdicts like this one, post their own trial results, and find a community of peers at Major Verdict, the national platform where plaintiff lawyers publicly display their trial records.Conclusion Mildred Hernandez lived a full century. She raised four daughters, and by her family's account, she was devoted, capable, and deeply loved. The last hours of her life were spent alone outside in the February cold, not because of an unforeseeable accident, but because, according to the jury that heard the evidence, the facility entrusted with her care chose not to act on what it knew. The $110 million verdict returned by a Sacramento jury will not bring her back. Her family said as much. But it is now part of the public record, and it carries weight for every family considering assisted living care for a loved one with dementia. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured or lost to nursing home neglect, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.

$5.4 Million Los Angeles Dog Bite Verdict Holds City and Rescue Group Liable for Shelter Attack

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has awarded $5.4 million to a woman who was mauled by a dog at a city animal shelter after neither the shelter nor the rescue group she worked for disclosed the animal's violent history. The verdict adds to a growing pattern of multi-million-dollar payouts tied to Los Angeles animal shelters failing to warn the public about dangerous dogs.What Happened at the East Valley Animal Shelter On September 23, 2020, Genice Horta, then working for a rescue group called HIT Living Foundation, arrived at the East Valley Animal Shelter in Los Angeles to transport a dog to Arizona. The dog, a one-year-old Belgian Malinois named Maximus, had been placed on the city's New Hope list, which is accessible to registered nonprofit rescues. A shelter employee told Horta that Maximus had "kennel anxiety." She offered the dog a treat containing trazodone, a common anxiety medication for dogs. Maximus took the treat, then lunged and latched onto Horta's right hand and arm. Horta had no prior experience working with shelter dogs, according to the city's attorneys. She alleged that the shelter employee who brought Maximus to her car failed to control the dog and never told her Maximus could be dangerous.A Dog Bite History the Los Angeles Shelter Never Disclosed What Horta did not know, and what she says no one told her, was that Maximus had already sent two people to the hospital. According to a brief filed by Horta's attorneys, Maximus' previous owners surrendered him to the shelter after he bit their 15-year-old daughter on the foot, leaving deep puncture wounds that required hospital treatment. Several weeks later, Maximus bit a shelter employee severely enough in the abdomen to send that employee to the emergency room. Shelter staff had documented Maximus "viciously biting and snapping at people walking past his enclosure." One employee's notes included the warning: "USE EXTREME CAUTION!!!" Despite all of this, neither the shelter nor HIT Living Foundation disclosed the bite history to Horta before she was sent to handle the dog.The Los Angeles Dog Bite Verdict and Liability Split After a 10-day trial, the jury decided that the City of Los Angeles was 62.5% liable, HIT Living Foundation was 25% liable, and Horta herself was 12.5% liable for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Horta filed her lawsuit in 2022. According to the brief filed by her attorneys, she underwent six surgeries to repair the bones and nerves in her right arm and was left with permanent damage. Attorney Ivan Puchalt, one of Horta's lawyers, said in a statement that the case "revealed a series of serious and preventable mistakes." Those mistakes, Puchalt said, involved failures in warning about Maximus' bite history and in controlling a dangerous dog before placing him with a handler. Deputy City Attorney Joshua Quinones argued in his closing that Maximus had already been sold to HIT Living Foundation when the attack occurred. He also pushed back on claims that the dog should have been euthanized. "L.A. animal shelters are not 'death row in Mississippi at midnight,'" Quinones said. "This is a rescue operation." A spokesperson for the L.A. City Attorney's Office did not respond to requests for comment. HIT Living Foundation also did not respond.Third Multi-Million Payout Over Undisclosed Dog Bite Histories This Los Angeles dog bite verdict is the third multi-million-dollar payout in recent years involving allegations that city animal shelters failed to tell potential adopters or handlers that a dog had bitten and seriously injured someone, as required by California state law. In November, the city reached a $3.25 million settlement with Kristin Wright, who was severely injured by a pit bull she adopted from the South LA shelter. Wright said the shelter never told her the dog had bitten his previous owner's elderly mother in the face. In response to the Wright case, LA Animal Services formally enacted a bite and behavioral disclosure policy last November. Agnes Sibal-von Debschitz, communications director for LA Animal Services, said that under the policy, "staff must provide a bite and behavioral disclosure to any person receiving an animal with a prior bite history." Before that, in 2023, a jury awarded $6.8 million to shelter volunteer Kelly Kaneko, who was mauled by a German shepherd mix at an LA city shelter after intake records contained no information about the dog's prior aggressive behavior.What This Verdict Signals for Animal Shelter Liability Horta's attorneys argued that Maximus was so dangerous he should have been euthanized. The city disputed that characterization, but the jury's verdict sends a clear message: shelters and rescue organizations can face significant financial consequences when they fail to disclose a dog's bite history. For plaintiff attorneys handling dog bite cases in California, this verdict reinforces that institutional defendants, including municipal shelters and rescue nonprofits, can be held jointly liable when they fail to follow state-mandated disclosure requirements. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured, find a plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.

$18.8 Million Monterey County Pedestrian Verdict Holds California Accountable for State Parks Crash

A Monterey County jury awarded $18.8 million to a former Rhode Island city councilmember who was struck by a vehicle in a marked crosswalk at Point Lobos State Natural Reserve in 2023. The Monterey County pedestrian verdict against the State of California sends a clear signal about government accountability when public safety fails inside state parks.How the Point Lobos Crash Happened On June 10, 2023, Helen Anthony, then a sitting member of the Providence, Rhode Island City Council, was visiting Point Lobos State Natural Reserve in Monterey County. While walking across a pedestrian crosswalk in broad daylight, she was struck by a vehicle driven by a California State Parks volunteer. The injuries were catastrophic. According to medical testimony presented at trial, Anthony suffered 20 broken ribs and a traumatic brain injury that will permanently affect her quality of life.The State's Defense and a $50,000 Settlement Offer The State of California argued that it did not bear responsibility for Anthony's injuries because the driver was a volunteer for Point Lobos State Natural Reserve, not a state employee. Anthony's legal team pushed back on that defense. During trial, her attorneys presented evidence that the state had previously offered Anthony just $50,000 to settle the case. The jury ultimately rejected the state's position and returned a verdict nearly 376 times that settlement offer. "This verdict makes clear that the State of California cannot escape responsibility by simply labeling someone a volunteer," said attorney Roger Dreyer, who represents Anthony. Dreyer added that the jury found the state failed to properly train and supervise the volunteer driver, and that the failure resulted in lasting consequences.A Career in Public Service Cut Short The Monterey County pedestrian verdict reflects more than a dollar figure. It captures the full scope of what Anthony lost. Anthony had served on the Providence City Council for six years, representing Ward 2 and chairing the council's Finance Committee. On August 1, 2025, she resigned from office to focus on her recovery. "I'm proud to have served Ward 2 and the City of Providence," Anthony wrote in her resignation letter. She noted that the demands of her council role were hindering her ability to heal from the 2023 crash. For a public servant who spent years advocating for schools, city services, and local government, the decision to step down underscores the severity of injuries that a traumatic brain injury and 20 broken ribs impose on daily life.What This Monterey County Pedestrian Verdict Means for Government Accountability This $18.8 million jury award raises questions about how the State of California trains and supervises volunteers who operate vehicles inside state parks. The defense theory that volunteer status shields the state from liability did not persuade the jury. The case also highlights pedestrian safety at California's state parks and natural reserves. Anthony was in a marked crosswalk in broad daylight when she was hit. Visitors to state parks expect a baseline level of safety, and this verdict suggests juries are willing to hold the state accountable when that expectation is not met. A spokesperson for California State Parks could not be reached for comment, according to the East Bay Times.Tracking Major Verdicts Across California and All 50 States Jury awards like the $18.8 million Monterey County pedestrian verdict shape how attorneys prepare cases, how insurers evaluate risk, and how the public understands what serious injury claims are worth at trial. Browsing the latest verdict news on Major Verdict gives both lawyers and the public access to significant outcomes as they happen. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself.

Plaintiff Verdict Against Uber Highlights Momentum as Lyft Cases Move to MDL

A federal jury’s $8.5 million verdict against Uber is being viewed by plaintiff-side attorneys as a pivotal development in rideshare sexual assault litigation, as related lawsuits against Lyft are now moving forward under a newly formed multidistrict litigation in California. The verdict came in the first bellwether trial within Uber’s passenger sexual assault litigation, where a jury awarded damages to plaintiff Jaylynn Dean following allegations that she was sexually assaulted by her driver. Dean’s legal team, led by Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp, Alexandra Walsh of Anapol Weiss, and Deborah Chang of Chang Klein, argued that Uber failed to adequately protect riders or warn them about known risks associated with sexual assault on its platform. Jurors ultimately found Uber liable under an apparent agency theory, concluding that the driver acted as the company’s representative from the rider’s perspective, despite Uber’s classification of drivers as independent contractors. While the jury rejected claims related to negligence and product design, legal observers noted that the apparent agency finding cuts through a defense frequently relied upon by rideshare companies. The same day the verdict was returned, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of 17 federal sexual assault lawsuits against Lyft into a single proceeding in the Northern District of California. The panel determined that the cases involve shared factual questions centered on passenger safety and Lyft’s response to reports of sexual misconduct. According to the consolidation order, plaintiffs allege Lyft was aware of the prevalence of sexual assault involving its drivers but failed to take sufficient preventative action. Those allegations include inadequate driver screening and supervision, failures to respond appropriately to complaints, and the absence of standardized safety measures or app-based protections. The Lyft litigation has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin in San Francisco. The panel selected the venue based on the number of pending cases already filed in the district and Lyft’s corporate presence there. Lyft opposed consolidation, pointing to related proceedings in state court, but the panel concluded that federal coordination was necessary to prevent fragmented litigation across multiple jurisdictions. The Uber verdict has also drawn attention from plaintiff-side practitioners nationwide. Commentators noted that early bellwether results often shape the trajectory of mass tort litigation, and a plaintiff win at this stage may strengthen leverage for future cases. Attorneys have emphasized that apparent agency theories focus on how companies present themselves to the public, rather than how they structure contractual relationships behind the scenes. As Uber prepares to appeal and Lyft cases move forward in coordinated federal proceedings, plaintiff attorneys are closely watching how courts continue to evaluate corporate accountability and passenger safety obligations in the rideshare industry.

LA Jury Returns $3 Million to Man Over Broken Sidewalk in City's Latest Liability Payout

A jury returned $3,000,000 in a civil injury case. The trial date reported was August 13, 2025. LA panel grants $3 million to man over broken sidewalk in city’s latest liability payout - A panel has granted a wedding photographer $3 million after he was injured when he tripped over a damaged sidewalk in Woodland Hills in 2019. Last week, a panel made Payman Heravi $3 million richer. While Heravi started to cry as the panel’s decision was read, they didn’t appear to be tears of joy. Payman says his left arm isn’t fully functional - all because of a severely uneven L.A. city sidewalk. Right now, (the) pain is a lot, Heravi said. Right now, I can’t use my shoulder. In December 2019, Heravi says he was walking down Ventura Boulevard in Woodland Hills and as he checked a text on his phone, he tripped on a several-inch uplift in the sidewalk. Heravi’s attorneys successfully argued that city employees saw the sidewalk was damaged, but didn’t repair it. That should be fixed in a reasonable manner, Heravi’s personal inpanel attorney Max Lee said. If that happened in this case, Mr. Heravi would still be able to do what he loves and not be in constant pain every day. Three surgeries and years of physical therapy later, Heravi says he still cannot return to making a living as a wedding photographer. The panel granted Heravi a total of $3,028,026. As for the sidewalk, it still has not been fixed. In roughly the past five years, the city of Los Angeles has paid out more than $86 million because of lawsuits relating to broken and uneven sidewalks.