Case Background
Lizette Silvas sued the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. She was riding a Metro bus that struck a parked vehicle in Los Angeles in May 2023.
She filed her Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on June 3, 2024. The lawsuit raised a single claim of negligence. Metro, a public entity, denied the allegations in its Answer. However, the parties later filed a stipulation regarding liability. The case then went to a jury on the question of damages. Judge Brock T. Hammond presided over the five-day trial in June 2026.
Cause
According to the Complaint, the incident happened at about 12:45 p.m. on or about May 26, 2023. Plaintiff had boarded Metro Bus No. 1681, which was running on Line 45. The bus traveled northbound on Broadway toward Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles.
Plaintiff sat in the front of the bus. The Complaint alleged that the bus suddenly struck the rear end of a vehicle parked on the roadside.
Plaintiff alleged the driver traveled faster than was reasonable for the roadway conditions. She cited Vehicle Code Section 22350 for that allegation. She also alleged the driver failed to pay attention to the roadway. The parties’ joint exhibit list included three bus camera videos. They showed a frontal view, a driver view and a view labeled “Plaintiff View.”
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff presented a government claim to Metro on October 16, 2023, before filing suit. She alleged that Metro acknowledged the claim and assigned it a claim number.
Injury
The Complaint described Plaintiff’s injuries in general terms. It alleged that Defendants’ negligence injured her health, strength and activity. It stated that her symptoms and conditions were ongoing. It also alleged she suffered great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering.
The Complaint did not identify specific diagnoses. However, the joint exhibit list referenced Plaintiff’s medical records and billing from several providers. These included Broadway Radiology, Shin Imaging, Elisa Health Chiro and a provider listed as a “TBI Specialist.” The list also included records from Dr. Grewal, Dr. Broukhim and Dr. Kolpin.
Metro listed Plaintiff’s records from Gracelight Community Health, subpoenaed for trial. It also listed her Broadway Radiology records dated March 16, 2023. That date fell about two months before the bus incident.
Damages
Plaintiff sought compensatory damages, including general and special damages. She requested non-economic damages above the Court’s jurisdictional limit. She also sought past and future medical and incidental expenses.
The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff could not perform her regular duties at her places of employment. She claimed financial losses from that inability to work. On that basis, she sought lost earnings and loss of earning capacity. She further requested prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit and other proper relief.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Lizette Silvas
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): C.R. McReynolds | Narek Vardanyan
Defendant(s): Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Counsel for Defendant(s): Jack L. Sheppard | Russell M. Rubin
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Plaintiff brought one cause of action for negligence against Metro and Does 1 through 25. She alleged that Metro owned or operated the bus. She also alleged that Metro owed a duty of reasonable care to foreseeable persons, including her.
According to the Complaint, Metro breached that duty in how it drove and operated the bus. Plaintiff also alleged that Metro negligently hired, trained and supervised the employees involved. She further alleged negligent entrustment, maintenance and operation of the bus.
Plaintiff relied on Government Code Section 815.2(a) to hold Metro responsible. That section makes a public entity liable for injuries its employees cause within the scope of employment. It applies when the employee would also face liability. On April 13, 2026, the Court dismissed the Doe Defendants without prejudice.
Defense
Metro filed its Answer on July 9, 2024. It generally and specifically denied every allegation in the Complaint. It also denied that Plaintiff suffered damages in any amount.
Metro then raised several affirmative defenses. It alleged that Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to her injuries. It also claimed that negligent third parties shared fault for the incident. Metro argued that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages. It further asserted the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. Finally, Metro claimed Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, including Government Code Section 945.6.
The dispute later narrowed. On March 6, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation regarding liability, and the Court granted it. A later defense motion in limine described this as Defendant’s “stipulation to admit liability.”
Earlier, the case had been set for a bench trial. Metro then sought relief from a jury trial waiver after it failed to timely post jury fees. The Court granted that request on February 11, 2026, and reset the case for a jury trial.
On April 13, 2026, the Court ruled on Metro’s motions in limine. According to the docket, the Court barred evidence of Metro’s size or wealth. It also precluded “Reptile Theory” arguments and improper arguments on dollar amounts for non-economic damages. The Court further limited non-retained treating physicians to opinions formed during treatment.
However, the Court denied several other defense motions. These included motions to bar “Golden Rule” arguments and to exclude Plaintiff’s experts as speculative. The Court also denied Metro’s Howell motion on medical bills. Likewise, it refused to limit medical specials to their reasonable value instead of the lien amounts billed.
Jury Verdict
Trial began on June 22, 2026, in Department 407 of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Narek Vardanyan appeared for Plaintiff, and Russell M. Rubin appeared for Metro. The Court impaneled and swore a jury of 12 and two alternates.
On June 26, 2026, the jury returned its special verdict. The form asked one question: what were Plaintiff’s damages?
The jury awarded $22,040 for past medical expenses. It awarded another $20,000 for future medical expenses. Medical expenses were the only economic loss category on the verdict form.
For past non-economic loss, the jury awarded $20,000 for physical pain. It added $12,000 for mental suffering. Past non-economic damages therefore totaled $32,000.
For future non-economic loss, the jury awarded $20,000 for physical pain. It also awarded $38,000 for future mental suffering. Future non-economic damages totaled $58,000.
In total, the jury awarded Plaintiff $132,040.
Post-trial Motions
Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs on July 9, 2026, seeking $36,271.12. She filed a second memorandum for the same amount on July 17, 2026.
On July 23, 2026, Metro moved to tax costs or strike Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs. The Court scheduled a hearing on that motion for November 4, 2026. The available documents do not reflect its outcome.
Meanwhile, Judge Hammond signed the Judgment on Special Verdict on August 10, 2026. The Judgment ordered Metro to pay Plaintiff $168,311.12. That sum combined the $132,040 verdict with $36,271.12 in claimed costs.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
