This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Premises Liability
Dangerous Condition of Public Property

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

Jin N. Lew

Arash Homampour
(The Homampour Law Firm PC)

Armine Safarian
(Homampour Law Firm PC)

Philip Michels
(Michels & Lew)


Defendant

Andrew M. Jones

Anthony R. Taylor
(Aleshire & Wynder LLP)

Brian A. Cardoza
(Southern California Edison Company)

Scott J. Grossberg
(Grossberg & Hoehn)

Lindsay M. Tabaian

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.


#114767

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390