Good Samaritan suffers post-concussive syndrome and facial scarring in successive freeway accidents. $3.1M. San Diego County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  On  the rainy Sunday morning of May 7, 2017, plaintiff Vanessa Hernandez and her boyfriend were traveling in the fast lane of northbound Interstate 5 travel when, just past the Oceanside Blvd. overpass bend in Oceanside, they witnessed the vehicle that was proceeding directly ahead of them lose control, careen over the west-side guardrail of the freeway, and roll over into the ditch below. Plaintiff’s boyfriend, who was driving at the time, immediately brought their vehicle to a stop on the west-side emergency shoulder of the freeway and he jumped out and ran down into the ditch to check on the occupants of the wrecked vehicle. Plaintiff immediately called 911. 

  Once on the phone with the 911 operator, plaintiff exited the driver’s side of her vehicle and walked behind her vehicle towards the area where the crashed vehicle had careened into the ditch, specifically to communicate with her boyfriend in order to respond to the 911 operator who was asking: (1) whether anyone inside the crashed vehicle was injured and, (2) whether anyone needed emergency assistance.

  While plaintiff was on the phone with the 911 operator, another vehicle being driven by defendant in the fast lane of northbound Interstate 5 came around the bend and lost control. Defendant 's vehicle spun into a 360-degree rotation, and struck the metal guardrail near where the prior accident had occurred. When defendant’s vehicle struck the metal guardrail, it snapped off a one-foot section of the metal guardrail, which flew off in the direction of plaintiff and struck her in the middle of the face. She was thrown to the ground, suffered serious injuries, and was transported from the scene of the accident to an Orange County Trauma Hospital for emergency care.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That defendant was negligent for failing to safely operate his vehicle under the existing rainy conditions, thereby losing control of his vehicle and causing the collision that caused plaintiff to be struck by the flying piece of guardrail; that defendant was 100% responsible for all of the damages that plaintiff suffered as a result.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant admitted that he lost control of his vehicle and struck the guardrail that struck plaintiff in the face, but he claimed that he was not responsible for causing plaintiff to suffer any injury or damages because: (1) water accumulation on the freeway from a backed-up storm drain caused defendant to lose control of his vehicle and therefore he was not responsible for losing control of his vehicle and that alternatively, (2) the driver of the initial vehicle that careened off the freeway was responsible for creating the circumstances that resulted in plaintiff’s attempt to render aid and therefore, the driver of the initial vehicle was the person at fault and thus fully responsible for creating the conditions that resulted in plaintiff being injured.