Claim against City for dangerous condition of public roadway was out on MSJ.
The Case
- Case Name: Souter v. City of Hesperia and Sandra Gonzalez Rodriguez
- Court and Case Number: San Bernardino Superior Court / CIVSB2123072
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, June 02, 2026
- Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, August 11, 2021
- Type of Case: Bicycle Accident, Negligence
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Jeffrey Erickson
- Plaintiffs:
Scott and Amy Souter
- Defendants:
Sandra Gonzalez Rodriguez
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $28,100,015
- Net Verdict or Award: $28,100,015
- Award as to each Defendant:
The City's motion for summary judgment was granted in 2024.
- Contributory/Comparative Negligence: None.
- Economic Damages:
Past lost wages (undisputed): $1,036,524
Future economic: $8,788,491 (life care plan reduced to present value)
- Non-Economic Damages:
Past noneconomic: $3,100,000
Future noneconomic: $12,000,000
Past loss of consortium: $1,675,000
Future loss of consortium: $1,500,000
- Post Trial Motions & Post-Verdict Settlements: The defense will be appealing this verdict based on multiple procedural errors, including but not limited to multiple MIL violations where plaintiffs and their experts repeatedly mentioned “insurance.”
The Attorneys
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Schaff Law Group by Jeffrey M. Schaff, Sacramento.
Schroeder Schaff & Low, Inc. by Jason W. Schaff, Rocklin.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
Gates, Gonter, Guy, Proudfoot & Muench by Elham Rabbani, Mark Capell, Margaret Rafter and Ryan Melford, Irvine.
The Experts
- Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Suzy Kim, M.D., physical medicine and rehabilitation.
Brook Feerick, RN, life care planning.
- Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
Jeremoe Stenehjem, M.D., physical medicine and rehabilitation.
Stephanie Engler, RN, life care planning.
- Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Joe Pohlot, economics.
- Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
David Weiner, economics.
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:
October 21, 2020 55-year-old plaintiff, a Los Angeles Fire Captain, was out riding his bike when defendant hit him from behind. The incident was captured by a Ring camera on an adjacent home. Defendant told the police and 911 operator that she saw plaintiff in the distance, had just worked a graveyard shift, and was falling asleep.
Plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury. He was hospitalized for 241 days and then returned home, confined to a wheelchair due to severe spasticity that has rendered his right side largely useless. He requires near constant monitoring as he is also subject to asphyxiation and needs assistance going to the bathroom.
Despite this, plaintiff attempted to return to work with the Fire Department for approximately two months before retiring. His wife has taken care of him for the last five and a half years.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:
That defendant's negligence was the sole cause of the collision.
As to defendant City of Hesperia, dangerous condition of public roadway. (Note: The City was out on its motion for summary judgement based on design immunity.)
- Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant contended that plaintiff's actions created a sudden emergency and that plaintiff was negligent for riding his bike on a narrow road with a speed limit of 50mph when a soft, dirt shoulder was available. Plaintiff claimed he never rode in the street and would only ride on the dirt shoulder. He had no explanation as to why he was on the street at the moment of impact.
Defendant's expert, Dr. Jerome Stenehjem, mainly testified to the life expectancy issue; the severity of plaintiff’s injuries were undeniable and undisputed. Defendant contended that due to the severity of his collision related injuries, plaintiff's life expectancy was reduced by 7-8 years.
Injuries and Other Damages
- Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
Severe traumatic brain injury resulting in severe spasticity in the right extremities; wheelchair dependence; spinal and bilateral leg fractures; respiratory failure / ARDS dysphasia and dysarthria; neurogenic bladder and bowel; intrathecal baclofen pump; contracture of right shoulder, wrist and hand; dislocated right shoulder; autonomic dysfunction,
-
Loss of consortium.
Special Damages
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: Waived.
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Medical: $11,000,000 reduced to $8,788,491 for present value.
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $1,036,524
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: Not claimed.
Demands and Offers
- Plaintiff §998 Demand: $25,000,000
- Plaintiff Demand during Trial: Per defense counsel: Plaintiff demanded $30,000,000 after closing, which was not accepted.
- Defendant §998 Offer: $15,000
Additional Notes
Insurer: Infinity
Per defense counsel:
- Plaintiff asked the jury for $85,000,000.
-
The City’s MSJ was based on “design immunity” – the defense argued that the City should be placed on the verdict form to represent its proportional fault. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued the opposite. The defense argued that “design immunity” just means that the City is immune from its negligence related to the design defects, not that it was not negligent. The judge would not allow the City to be placed on the verdict form. The judge would not allow a rebuttal expert related to the street and signage after the judge ruled that plaintiff opened the door to the issue.
Response by plaintiff's counsel:
Defendant had not identified the City as a potential tortfeasor in any discovery over the five years of litigation. The rebuttal expert was never disclosed despite the fact that the expert was hired for the sole purpose of conducting an investigation of the scene. The judge allowed the defense multiple opportunities to provide an offer of proof as to the scope of the expert's testimony, but counsel was unable to articulate admissible testimony.