Facts

On Oct. 14, 2019, at 3:30 a.m., California Highway Patrol Sgt. Richard Langford responded to an emergency call over his CHP radio having to do with a parked vehicle and a disturbance between Balboa Blvd. and White Oak Blvd. on the 101 Freeway heading west. The sergeant rushed to the location eastbound on the 101 Freeway from the CHP Office on DeSoto Avenue in the San Fernando Valley. While en route, his Dodge Charger was speeding at 88 miles per hour when his vehicle crashed into plaintiffs' son as Danuka was running across the freeway. For a CHP sergeant or any law enforcement officer to be excused from obeying the rules of the road while responding to an emergency, he or she is required by Vehicle Code Section 21055 to have activated his or her forward-facing bright red light, and, if necessary, his/her siren. Sgt. Langford had done neither of the above prior to crashing into the Decedent.

Plaintiffs Desmond and Shirin Silva sued for, among other causes of action, the wrongful death of their beloved only son, Danuka, a UCLA graduate. Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Muhammad Reiditio had also been named in the lawsuit, but plaintiffs' claims against them were resolved at the Mandatory Settlement Conference of January 18, 2023. The resolution of Oct. 30, 2023, was, thus, only with the State of California. The State had previously demurred to the complaint based on its claims of immunity from civil liability under Government Code Section 821.6; but the Court of Appeal held that the immunity claims were inapplicable inasmuch as Vehicle Code Section 17001 and Government Code Section 815, Subd.(b) were dispositive of the issues before it. (Silva v. Langford et. al. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 710.)

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs asserted that the liability of Sergeant Langford's employer, the State of California, was established for the following reasons:

The Negligence of the Sgt. Langford is imputed to his employer as permitted under Vehicle Code Section 17001.

Inasmuch as Sergeant Richard Langford, the driver of the CHP vehicle that crashed into the decedent, had failed to adhere to the law pertaining to red lights and siren in connection with Code 3/emergency driving (Vehicle Code Section 21055), common law standards as as to duty, breach thereof, and comparative negligence are applicable.

The sergeant's poor driving violated not only applicable law but CHP guidelines as well. Having failed to activate his forward-facing red light and also his siren, he was required to drive no faster than the 65 mile per hour speed limit at the time of the fatal accident.

Having observed pedestrians running across freeways and highways multiple times during his tenure with the CHP, the sergeant knew from his own experience that pedestrian traffic on the freeway is not an uncommon occurrence, but failed to modify his driving accordingly.

Having responded to the radio call out regarding the disturbance on the 101 Freeway, he should have been but was not attentive to the subsequent call out from CHP Dispatch to the units in the field having to do with a pedestrian standing on the freeway.

The sergeant was distracted and not paying attention to what was in front of him just prior to the auto v. pedestrian collision.

Had he been driving within the speed limit and paying attention to what was straight ahead, his headlights would have made it possible for him to observe a person running across the freeway at a distance of 200 feet, far enough for him to have taken evasive action even while driving at 65 miles per hour.

But even without noticing the decedent and without taking any evasive action, based on the California Highway Patrol's own reconstruction of the accident and its calculations upon which such reconstruction depended, the accident would not have occurred had Sergeant Langford not been speeding. The extra time of approximately three-quarters of a second that it would have taken him to arrive at the point of impact would have been sufficient for the decedent to have cleared the sergeant's vehicle.

The training given to officers and field officers by the CHP includes misinformation consistent with Sgt. Langford's poor judgment call.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Decedent directly caused the collision by his violation of Vehicle Code section 21954(a), which requires pedestrians outside of crosswalks to yield the right of way to close oncoming vehicles. Furthermore, it is unlikely that CHP Sergeant Langford would have recognized the pedestrian as an immediate hazard until he was within 36 feet from him, which would not have been sufficient distance for the Sergeant to respond to the situation even while driving within the posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour.

Result

The case against the State of California settled for $1,250,000.