Karla Ramirez, Mario Ramirez v. City of Cypress, City of La Palma and Southern California Edison Company
Published: Jan. 4, 2014 | Result Date: Aug. 16, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 30-2012-00576917-CU-PO-CJC Settlement – $2,220,000
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Arash Homampour
(The Homampour Law Firm PC)
Armine Safarian
(Homampour Law Firm PC)
Philip Michels
(Michels & Lew)
Defendant
Anthony R. Taylor
(Aleshire & Wynder LLP)
Brian A. Cardoza
(Southern California Edison Company)
Scott J. Grossberg
(Grossberg & Hoehn)
Laurel A. Hoehn
(Office of the San Bernardino County Counsel)
Facts
On Nov. 1, 2010, Sydney Ramirez and a friend were crossing an intersection at Crescent Ave. and Watson St. to get to John F. Kennedy High School. A vehicle being driven by Cheryl Vincent hit Sydney and her friend. Sydney died on Nov. 4. Her parents sued the City of Cypress and the City of La Palma, given that portions of the sidewalk were in these cities, as well as Southern California Edison Co., which owned streetlights in the area.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged the crosswalk constituted a dangerous condition, which the defendant cities failed to properly maintain, and that Edison was negligent in its maintenance of the street lights. They argued that the defendants knew about the condition, but didn't fix it, noting that the cities received complaints about vehicles failing to stop for pedestrians at the crosswalk. Plaintiffs argued that rather than fixing the area, defendants only put an officer at the location to watch the area for a limited amount of time. Further, plaintiffs pointed to the "School Crossing Control Criteria," arguing that a gap study of the crosswalk was needed to analyze whether students could safely cross based on the number of sufficient gaps in traffic. Plaintiffs alleged that although La Palma studied the crosswalk, the study was performed incorrectly, and that Cypress didn't properly investigate the crosswalk. Further, plaintiffs alleged that two months after the incident in this case, the defendant cities performed a study, which determined that a traffic signal was necessary at the crosswalk. Last, plaintiffs alleged Cypress admitted that it failed to do a study, even though a study of the crosswalks was warranted, and that it had no explanation for not performing one.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that the crosswalk wasn't unsafe and challenged the contention that other accidents had occurred. The cities contended that their actions were reasonable and didn't breach any of it's duties to the public.
Edison rejected any claims of wrongdoing, arguing that its streetlights worked correctly and that it didn't owe any duties. In addition, defendants claimed Sydney failed to utilize her own common sense when she was crossing the street.
Damages
Sydney's parents sought damages due to their daughter's death and loss of society.
Result
Sydney's parents received $2,220,000 in settlement of the matter.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390