Case Background
Robert Danbom sued the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Fire Department, and Vincent Douglas Leong. The complaint was filed on August 26, 2022, in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case proceeded under Case No. 22STCV28056. It arose from a collision on September 2, 2021, between a city fire truck and Danbom's motorcycle.
The complaint stated that Danbom was forty years old on the date of the accident. At approximately 7:00 p.m., he was riding a 2005 Harley Davidson motorcycle northbound on Vermont Avenue. He wore a helmet and approached the intersection with Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles. The complaint stated that Danbom had a green light and the right of way.
The complaint stated that a 2006 Freightliner Fire Tiller operated by Leong entered the intersection traveling westbound on Sunset Boulevard. The complaint described the vehicle as sixty feet long. It stated that Leong was acting within the scope of his employment with the City. The complaint stated that the Fire Tiller belonged to the Los Angeles Fire Department.
A claim attachment provided further details about the collision. It stated that the fire truck entered the intersection through a red traffic light. The attachment described Danbom and his motorcycle sliding sideways in an attempt to avoid the truck. It stated that he was struck and crushed underneath the rear wheels. The complaint referred to the collision as the "Subject Accident."
Cause
The complaint alleged that Leong owed a duty to exercise reasonable care while operating the fire truck. It stated that he failed to yield to perpendicular traffic and entered the intersection against a red signal. The claim attachment alleged that the fire truck entered without checking whether the intersection was clear.
The complaint cited California Vehicle Code Section 21056. It stated that the statute required emergency vehicle operators to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway. The complaint alleged that Leong violated this standard. It also referenced the NFPA 1500 standard for fire department operations. The complaint stated that the standard required fire apparatus to come to a complete stop at red signals. It alleged that the Fire Tiller failed to stop or slow before entering the intersection.
The claim attachment alleged that the City's agents disregarded the safety of approaching motorists. The complaint further alleged that the City was negligent in its training and supervision of Leong. It alleged that Leong was inattentive, tired, fatigued, or otherwise distracted at the time of the collision. The complaint alleged that the City's policies failed to identify and prevent such risks.
The exhibit list identified trial evidence related to the collision. It included scene diagrams, body-camera footage, transcripts, and accident reconstruction renders. The list also referenced Children's Hospital videos and a 3D scan of the intersection.
Injury
The complaint alleged that the collision caused severe injuries to Danbom’s left leg and other parts of his body. It also alleged that the injury could ultimately require amputation.
The claim materials identified fractures involving the tibia, fibula, ankle, and distal phalanx. They also described a severe lower-leg degloving injury. The materials also listed a dislocated shoulder, significant contusions, and lacerations.
The claim attachment characterized the injuries as significant and incapacitating. It also stated that Danbom required physicians, surgeons, and other medical personnel. The documents anticipated additional medical expenses.
Damages
The claim attachment stated that Danbom sought damages exceeding $12,000,000. It described the case as an unlimited civil action. The attachment stated that the exact amount would require expert evidence to ascertain.
The complaint sought compensatory and general damages for past, present, and future injuries. It listed psychological, emotional, and physical pain, suffering, distress, injury, and disfigurement. The complaint also sought economic damages for loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity.
The complaint sought recovery for hospital, medical, professional, and incidental expenses. It stated that Danbom employed the services of hospitals, physicians, nurses, and similar providers. The complaint alleged that he would continue to incur such expenses in the future.
The complaint additionally sought damages for loss of personal property and income. It requested prejudgment interest, pre-trial interest, and costs of suit. The complaint stated that damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Robert Danbom
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Filippo Marchino | Carlos X. Colorado | Thomas E. Gray | Richard W. Davis | Brian Paul Worthington
Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles
Counsel for Defendant(s): Thomas C. Hurrell | Jordan S. Stern | Blessing O. Ekpezu | Janet Hur | Carol Ayvazian Attarian | Timothy Quinn Day | Joshua Anthony Quinones
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Danbom asserted three causes of action. They were negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. He demanded a jury trial.
The City separately filed a cross-complaint. It asserted claims involving indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. The cross-complaint sought indemnity for potential judgments and proportionate responsibility from other parties.
Danbom later dismissed the Los Angeles Fire Department and Leong without prejudice. The case proceeded to trial against the City.
Defense
The City and Leong’s answer denied each allegation in the unverified complaint.
The defense asserted several affirmative defenses. It alleged that Danbom’s own negligence contributed to his damages. It also alleged negligence by other persons and sought a corresponding reduction in damages.
The defense further alleged assumption of risk. It asserted statute-of-limitations and California Tort Claims Act defenses. It also invoked several statutory immunity provisions.
Jury Verdict
The special verdict was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on August 13, 2026. It asked whether Leong operated the fire truck negligently while employed by the City. The answer was yes.
The verdict form then asked whether that negligence was a substantial factor in causing Danbom's harm. Again, the answer was yes.
On the question of Danbom's own negligence, the verdict form returned a finding of no. Because of that finding, the form did not require an assignment of comparative responsibility.
The verdict awarded $6,792,385 for future medical and life-care expenses. It awarded $10 million for past noneconomic loss. It also awarded $12 million for future noneconomic loss. The total award was $28,792,385.
The noneconomic awards covered categories listed on the verdict form. Those categories included physical pain, mental suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. They also included disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
