Personal Injury Legal Cases

Dangerous Road Conditions, Negligent Driver Cause Trolley To Collide With Student On Bicycle

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, EAST DISTRICT

JULIE FARRIS, Plaintiff,
 
vs.     
     
CITY OF AZUSA; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY; OSCAR ARMANDO GALAN; and DOES 1 to 50 Defendants.
_____________________________________

CASE NO:  KC055075

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY; MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE; NEGLIGENCE

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, Plaintiff JULIE FARRIS, and for causes of action against Defendants, hereby alleges as follows:
COMMON ALLEGATIONS FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1. The automobile accident which is the subject matter of the Complaint, and the incident which caused the personal injury damages alleged herein, occurred on February 19, 2008, at approximately 11:14 a.m., in the westbound lanes of the 800 block of East Foothill Boulevard, in the City of Azusa, Los Angeles County, State of California (this accident is hereinafter referred to as the “SUBJECT ACCIDENT.”)

2. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff JULIE FARRIS was a resident of Los Angeles County, State of California, and is now a resident of the County of Orange, State of California. 

3. Defendant CITY OF AZUSA is a governmental entity, being a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

4. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES is a governmental entity, being a political subdivision of the State of California.

5. Defendant AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and, at all times relevant, had its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, State of California. 

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based upon such information and belief,  alleges that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant OSCAR ARMANDO GALAN and DOES 21 to 30 were and are individual residents of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and were the owners, operators, drivers, employers, agents and employees of the owners, operators, drivers, owners, operators, drivers of the certain TROLLEY owned and operated by Defendant AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY (hereinafter referred to as the “SUBJECT TROLLEY”) at the time of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT.

7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 50, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities when that information is ascertained.  Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based on that information and belief, alleges that each such fictitiously named Defendant is legally responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiff injuries and damages were proximately caused by each such Defendant's actions.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based on this information and belief, alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of their Co-Defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged were acting within the course, scope, purpose, and authority of such agency and employment with the full knowledge, permission and consent of each of their co-Defendants.

9. Plaintiff has complied with the statutory claims process which is a condition precedent to the filing of this action for claims made against government entities and employees, including Defendants CITY OF AZUSA and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

10. At all times relevant, Defendants CITY OF AZUSA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1 to 20, and each of them, had the right, power, and duty to and were engaged in the business of designing, planning, approving, manufacturing, researching, testing, inspecting, investigating, evaluating, constructing, maintaining, and repairing the roadway known as the 800 Block of East Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California, especially that section of East Foothill Blvd. between Citrus Ave. on the East end, and the West Campus of Azusa Pacific University on the West end, and including but not limited to the roadway surface, traffic safety devices, alternative routes, sidewalks, and curbs and other features and structures adjacent to the roadway surface. This section of roadway and adjacent areas is hereinafter collectively referred to as “the SUBJECT ROADWAY”.

11. As a legal result of the accident which is the subject matter of this action, Plaintiff JULIE FARRIS was injured in her health, strength, and activities, and sustained injury to her body and shock and injury to her nerves and nervous system, all of which have caused and continue to cause her great mental, physical and emotional pain and suffering, disfigurement, permanent partial and total disability, physical impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, and other general damages. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that her injuries will result in permanent injury and disability, including but not limited to severe brain injury, all to her general damage in an amount not presently ascertained, but in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this court.

12. As a direct and legal result of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT   Plaintiff JULIE FARRIS  sustained serious and permanent  physical injuries, and as a legal result of those injuries, has incurred and will incur in the future, the expense of medical treatment to treat those injuries; has lost and will lose in the future income from work and/or the full or partial ability to work; and other special damages in an amount which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount of this court, according to proof at trial.
 
  FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
 (Liability for Dangerous Condition of Public Property as Against Defendants
 CITY OF AZUSA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1 to 20)

13. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 12, above.

14. At and before the time of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT, the roadway and adjacent land to the 800 block of East Foothill Boulevard in the City of Azusa was in a dangerous condition because of the lack of crosswalk and/or traffic signals which would allow pedestrians and bicylcists to safely cross the roadway full of speeding motor vehicles so as to travel westbound on the subject roadway, away from the WEST CAMPUS of Azusa Pacific University toward their residences or the EAST CAMPUS of Azusa Pacific University; by allowing the parking of vehicles along the SUBJECT ROADWAY during the daylight hours and the periods of time during which the SUBJECT ROADWAY is most congested and busy with motor vehicles; and/or by failing to provide sidewalks, bike paths, or other pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel between the WEST CAMPUS to the EAST CAMPUS, or to residences.  This SUBJECT ROADWAY was and is land owned, controlled, or managed by or otherwise the responsibility of Defendant CITY OF AZUSA and/or COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, which was constructed and improved by Defendants, their employees, agents, and others, and each of them.

14.  At or about the time of the SUBJECT INCIDENT, the SUBJECT ROADWAY was in a dangerous and defective condition. Due to defendants’ improper design, construction,  inspection, evaluation, remodel, maintenance, and/or repair of the SUBJECT ROADWAY, the SUBJECT ROADWAY was in a dangerous and defective condition because of the elements including but not limited to the following:
 A. Bicyclists traveling between the campuses of Azusa Pacific University were, at all times relevant, forced into the SUBJECT ROADWAY, the usable surface of which was narrowed by the presence of parked cars, because of the lack of adequate sidewalk or other alternate bike lanes for their use;
 B. Bicyclists were forced to travel in the eastbound direction in the westbound lanes (against the flow of traffic) when students traveled from the West Campus to the East Campus because of the lack of any traffic control devices which would allow students and others to safely cross the SUBJECT ROADWAY to get to the Eastbound lanes; and
 C. The absence of any required or adequate warnings of the aforementioned conditions.

 15. Defendants and each of them, by and through their employees, agents, servants, and
independent contractors, proximately and legally caused the injuries and damages to plaintiffs, as hereinafter mentioned, by negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, wrongfully, unreasonably and unlawfully doing and /or failing to do the following. The conduct of defendants and each of them caused a dangerous condition that created a substantial risk of the type of injuries hereinafter alleged when the SUBJECT ROADWAY was used with due care in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable.
 A. Planning, designing, constructing, owning, possessing, controlling, operating, maintaining, servicing, inspecting, repairing, and monitoring the SUBJECT ROADWAY and adjacent areas, including but not limited to the geometric design, design controls, access controls, traffic controls, crosswalk, warning devices, topography and physical features;
 B. Supervising, controlling, contracting, inspecting, repairing, maintaining, monitoring, and working on or at the SUBJECT ROADWAY with regard to design configurations, geometric design, sight distances, absence of traffic control devices and warning devices, the presence of certain topography, soils conditions, appurtenances, and physical features, on and adjacent to the SUBJECT ROADWAY which created a dangerous condition and “trap” which was not reasonably apparent to prudent bicyclists using due care;
 C. Failing to guard, warn and protect bicyclists from hazards which defendants knew about or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known about;
 D. Designing, constructing, owning, supervising, controlling, testing, entrusting, permitting, managing, maintaining, servicing, repairing, inspecting and operating with regard to the SUBJECT ROADWAY so as to cause, permit and allow dangerous, defective and unsafe conditions at the accident site to exist;
 E.  Failing to install appropriate, required and/or adequate traffic control devices including signs, signals, lights, road markers, striping, bike lanes, lane designations, lane delineations, barriers and the like, failure to install required and/or adequate warning signs, signals or devices to warn and/or apprise motorists of the presence of the dangerous condition of the SUBJECT ROADWAY which was not reasonably apparent to bicyclists using due care, and failing to otherwise advise or control bicyclists and traffic at or near the SUBJECT ROADWAY of the danger.
 F. Creating a trap for bicyclists on and around the SUBJECT ROADWAY and the passing lane and shoulder.
 G. Conducting themselves with reference to the SUBJECT ROADWAY so as to proximately and legally cause the injuries and damages sustained by plaintiffs.

16. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that at all times relevant prior to the SUBJECT INCIDENT, the SUBJECT ROADWAY had become more dangerous and unsafe as a result of substantially increased serious and fatal traffic accidents, and that as a result of such substantially increased the foreseeable risk of accidents, Defendants and each of them had been placed on actual as well as constructive notice of the dangerousness and unsafe condition of the SUBJECT ROADWAY, and had a reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary remedial work to conform the property to a reasonable design or plan, but failed to do so. Further, defendants had been provided with the funding to carry out such remedial improvements but willfully and deliberately failed and refused to follow and adhere to their own adopted measures binding on the defendants so as to use such funds for other purposes at the expense of public safety, and further unreasonably failed in the interim, to have attempted to provide adequate warnings of such dangers and unsafe conditions of the SUBJECT ROADWAY.

17. At the time of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT, Plaintiff was injured when she was struck by the SUBJECT TROLLEY. Had the SUBJECT ROADWAY not been in a dangerous and defective condition, Plaintiff would not have been struck by the SUBJECT TROLLEY.

18. As a legal result of the dangerous condition of the roadway, Plaintiff has suffered damage as alleged herein, in such sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount for this Court according to proof at trial.  

   SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
 (Negligence as Against Defendants
 OSCAR ARMANDO GALAN, AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, and DOES 21 to 30)

19. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 11, above.

20. At the time of the accident which is the subject matter of this action, Defendants OSCAR ARMANDO GALAN, AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, and DOES 21 to 30,  and each of them, negligently, carelessly, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and tortiously operated a motor vehicle, or owned a motor vehicle which was operated, or employed a person who was operating the SUBJECT TROLLEY in such a manner so as to strike the bicycle being ridden by Plaintiff.

21.  As a legal result of the negligent actions of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages as alleged herein.

   THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
 (Negligence as Against Defendants
 AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, and DOES 31 to 50)

22. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 11, above.

23. At and before the time of the accident which is the subject matter of this action, Defendants AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY and DOES 31 to 50,  and each of them, were in a special relationship with its students enrolled with the University and attending classes at the East and West campuses of the University. Plaintiff is a member of that group of people with whom Defendants, and each of them, had a special relationship.

24. As a result of this special relationship, Defendants, and each of them, owed the students a duty of due care to provide the students with a safe pathway and safe conditions under which students could travel from one campus to the other. This duty is especially important in light of the role that the operations of the University, including but not limited to its scheduling of the location and times of classes, played in increasing the traffic congestion and intensity along the SUBJECT ROADWAY.

25. At all times relevant, Defendants, and each of them,  negligently, carelessly, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and tortiously failed to exercise due care in the performance of its duty to protect and provide for the safety of the University’s students. This failure to exercise due care includes but is not limited to:
 A. The failure to provide for a safe path for students to travel between the East Campus and the West Campus, as an alternative to the SUBJECT ROADWAY, especially at times between and just before the start of class sessions when traffic and congestion and time pressure will all foreseeably be at their most intense, creating the most risk to pedestrians and bicyclists trying to move between campuses;
 B. The failure to insist upon, plan for, request, or otherwise secure the installation of a cross-walk, traffic signals, and/or other traffic control devices which would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the SUBJECT ROADWAY near the West Campus so as to increase the ability to travel East in the Eastbound lanes of the SUBJECT ROADWAY to travel from the West Campus to the East Campus of the University;
 C. The failure to insist upon, plan for, request, or otherwise secure the widening of the SUBJECT ROADWAY;
 D. The failure to insist upon, plan for, request, or otherwise secure steps to prevent the narrowing of the SUBJECT ROADWAY by the presence of parked vehicles at heavy traffic times, by way of the creation of temporary and/or permanent no parking zones on one or both sides of the SUBJECT ROADWAY;
 E. The failure to seek the modification or change in the SUBJECT ROADWAY or in its operations as the conditions in the SUBJECT ROADWAY became more dangerous and increasingly harmful for the students forced to travel from one campus to the other.

26.  As a legal result of the negligent actions of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages as alleged herein.
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
 1. General damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof;
 2. Past and future hospital, medical, and other health care expenses according to proof;
 3. Loss of wages and/or earning capacity, both past and future, in an amount according to proof;
 4. Costs of suit incurred herein; and
 5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
  
DATED:  January 15, 2010    BISNAR|CHASE

       ______________________________________
       BRIAN D. CHASE
       SCOTT A. RITSEMA
        Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Be on the Hit-and-Run Lookout

BISNAR | CHASE, in conjunction with WeTip, a leading anonymous crime reporting service and law enforcement advocacy non-profit organization, is launching a program intended to wipe out hit-and-runs in the state of California by offering rewards for tips leading to the arrest and felony conviction of hit-and-run drivers. See Hit-and-Run Reward for more details.

BISNAR | CHASE 2006-2010 Super Lawyers names outstanding lawyers from more than 60 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. BISNAR | CHASE has received this award for five consecutive years. Brian Chase was named one of the 2010 Top 50 Orange County Lawyers.