Facts

On Feb. 17, 2017, Michael Williams was driving in a residential neighborhood in the City of Victorville when his vehicle was swept away by flood waters into a nearby park. He was trapped in his car as the flood waters and debris submerged his vehicle, causing him to drown.

Due to an intense rain storm, the high desert experienced flash flooding during the early evening hours of February 17, 2017. At the location of the incident, Pebble Beach Drive intersects with the Oro Grande Wash, an improved natural watercourse that runs through the City of Victorville north towards the Mojave River. The road includes a low water crossing known as a "channel crossing" or "Arizona crossing." During flooding events, water crosses over the top of the road. The City of Victorville knew Pebble Beach Drive was subject to flooding during heavy storms and had posted "Subject to Flooding" signs for eastbound and westbound traffic on Pebble Beach Drive. The City of Victorville had closed Pebble Beach Drive in the past when it became aware of flooding at that location, but had not closed it prior to the incident.

Michael Williams had PCP in his blood at the time of the incident. The parties disputed whether this had any effect on his actions on the night of the incident.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the City was aware of the dangerous conditions on Pebble Beach Drive at the Oro Grande Wash, which had a history of flash flooding. Plaintiffs claimed that the City also had ample advance notice of the likelihood of flash flooding as well as local weather reports and National Weather Service warnings.

Despite all the advance warnings, the City failed to take action to barricade the location and prevent motorists from entering. Two cars, including Michael's vehicle, were overwhelmed and washed away by the flood waters. The other motorist was dramatically saved by San Bernardino SWIFT water rescue units and helicopter evacuation, after he managed to escape his vehicle and retreat to the roof of his car. Rescue workers were not able to save Michael.

The Department of Public Works, the City department in charge of maintaining the streets in response to rain storms, will occasionally place Department employees on "Storm Duty" when they are concerned that a storm might be breaking over the City. Storm Duty involves clearing out storm drains, catch basins and drainage of channels of mud, leaves or debris to ensure water is able to flow freely and mitigate the potential for street flooding. The City activated Storm Duty the day before the incident (February 16, 2017). Plaintiffs claimed the City's employees performed these maintenance activities in all the predesignated areas except for the area where Michael lost his life. Plaintiffs claimed the City had no explanation for this omission although there was a clear risk in this area coupled with its known history of dangerous conditions. Weather advisories from the National Weather service issued flash flood warnings as early as February 15, 2017, two days before Michael's death. Despite all the forewarnings of the impending rain and actual notice of the flooding at the subject area through deputy reports, they waited 30 minutes to respond to the area.

Plaintiffs first contended that the City of Victorville's employee negligence created a dangerous condition, and the City failed to remedy the dangerous condition within a reasonable time of the City having notice of the dangerous condition. Plaintiffs contended that the area was in a dangerous condition because the City's practice of closing flooded roads clearly anticipates motorists attempting to cross flooded portions. The City had actual and constructive notice of the dangerous condition because the road had been closed to traffic on at least 4 occasions in the 3 months prior to the incident, and the City knew or should have known that a severe storm event was coming, and it rained for many hours on the day of the incident before the City first called for back up and road closures. Moreover, plaintiffs contended the City created the dangerous condition by failing to maintain drainage in the area of the incident and failing to close the road within a reasonable time.

Second, plaintiffs contended that the City of Victorville's road design created a dangerous condition, and the City failed to establish their affirmative defense of road design immunity. Plaintiffs claimed the road design created a dangerous condition because the City's practice of closing flooded roads clearly anticipates motorists attempting to cross flooded portions, which was a foreseeable risk of harm to motorists if the road was used as designed. Plaintiff's claimed the the City's own documents show the conditions of the roadway and surrounding flood channel have greatly changed since the road design was approved. Plaintiffs also claimed the as-built status of the area was not in conformity with the approved plans. And lastly, plaintiffs claimed that the City's employee negligence was a concurring cause in contributing to the harm and prevents the City from asserting road design immunity.

Third, plaintiffs contended that the City of Victorville failed to establish that the injuries were caused by the weather conditions or that a reasonably careful person using the road at the time would have noticed and anticipated the effect on the use of the road.

Fourth, plaintiffs claimed the toxicology analysis of decedent's blood is unreliable and inadmissible to the issues of the case because the level of PCP found in decedent's blood sample was not at a sufficiently high level as to cause even mild effects of intoxication. Moreover, the blood sample was taken 16 days after decedent's death. Lastly, the blood sample was based on only a single specimen of blood.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The City of Victorville contended it had no liability for the incident for several reasons. First, the subject roadway was not a dangerous condition of public property. The City of Victorville's experts concluded the subject storm was an unprecedented 1,000-year storm event. Also, despite the roadway having existed for nearly 50 years, there were no known prior accidents on Pebble Beach Drive in which vehicles had been swept off the roadway by flood waters. The City also contended it properly maintained the location of the incident and had proper "Subject to Flooding" signs per MUTCD guidelines.

Second, the City intended to introduce evidence that Michael Williams was not using due care at the time of the incident. The City's human factors expert testified that the flooding conditions present on the night of the accident were perceivable and avoidable to an alert, attentive, and sober driver. Despite the presence of moving water across the roadway, which was illuminated by a streetlight, and the posted "Subject to Flooding" sign, Michael Williams made a bad decision and drove into the water and exposed himself to an avoidable hazard. The City also intended to introduce evidence that Michael Williams' PCP intoxication was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Per the City's experts, Mr. Williams' PCP-impaired perceptions prevented him from using the same due care that would have been exercised by a reasonably careful driver.

Lastly, the City contended it was entitled to the complete defense of design immunity and weather immunity.

Insurer

Public Entity Risk Management Authority (P.E.R.M.A.)

Settlement Discussions

The parties attended private mediation with Rob Bennett of Judicate West. Plaintiffs' initial demand was $20 million. The case subsequently settled prior to trial, with the continued assistance of Rob Bennett.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought exclusively noneconomic damages in this wrongful death action, which included the loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support and guidance.

Injuries

Plaintiffs suffered noneconomic injuries in this wrongful death action, which included the loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support and guidance.

Result

The parties agreed to a global settlement in the amount of $2.5 million.