Case Background
A San Francisco jury sided with the Defendants in a personal injury lawsuit that stemmed from a March 2023 traffic collision. The case was tried before the Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo in Department 610 of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The jury returned its verdict on November 19, 2025.
Cause
On March 23, 2023, a motor vehicle collision occurred at the intersection of Vermont Street and 16th Street, within the City and County of San Francisco. Rebecca P. Ducote, the Plaintiff, alleged that Susanna R. Bair operated a vehicle negligently at that intersection and that her actions were the direct and legal cause of the injuries Ducote sustained. The vehicle Susanna Bair drove was owned by her mother, Marilyn Bair.
Injury
Ducote alleged she suffered personal bodily injuries as a result of the collision. The complaint identified wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity as consequences of the accident.
Damages Sought
Ducote sought compensatory damages according to proof. The complaint did not specify a fixed dollar amount but sought recovery for all categories of loss connected to the accident, including both economic and noneconomic damages.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Rebecca P. Ducote
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Haig A. Harris, Jr., Esq.
Defendants: Susanna R. Bair and Marilyn Bair
Counsel for Defendants: Marvin J. Straus, Esq. | Dalal Kaddoura, Esq
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Ducote filed the complaint on March 7, 2024, asserting a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. She alleged that Susanna Bair drove negligently on March 23, 2023, and that her driving was the legal and proximate cause of the collision and all resulting harm.
Ducote also named Marilyn Bair as a Defendant on two separate grounds. First, she alleged that Marilyn Bair owned the vehicle Susanna drove and had given her daughter permission to operate it. Second, she alleged that Marilyn Bair entrusted the vehicle to Susanna, making her responsible under the theory of negligent entrustment. Both Bairs were also named as each other's agents and employees for purposes of the lawsuit.
In addition to the named Defendants, the complaint included Doe Defendants numbered 1 through 20. Does 1 through 10 were alleged to have been agents or employees of the named Defendants acting within the scope of their employment. Does 11 through 20 were identified as persons whose capacities were unknown to the Plaintiff at the time of filing.
Ducote checked off motor vehicle as the sole cause of action. She sought compensatory damages and asked the Court to award amounts according to proof at trial.
Defense
Susanna R. Bair and Marilyn Bair filed their answer on July 12, 2024. They denied every allegation in the complaint, both generally and specifically, and denied that Ducote suffered any damages at all.
The defense raised twenty-seven affirmative defenses. Among the most significant: the defense argued that Ducote failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, and that her own negligence caused or contributed to the accident. Under California's comparative fault principles, the defense argued her recovery should be reduced or eliminated in proportion to her own share of fault.
The defense also argued that any noneconomic damages owed by the Bairs should be capped in direct proportion to their percentage of fault, citing California Civil Code Section 1431.2(a), which governs the Fair Responsibility Act.
Other defenses raised included assumption of risk, failure to mitigate damages, intervening or superseding cause by third parties, the doctrine of unavoidable accident, and an emergency situation defense. The defense further alleged that some or all of the medical treatment Ducote received was unnecessary and therefore not recoverable. They also raised a defense under California Civil Code Section 3333.4, contending that Ducote lacked liability insurance as required by California law, which would bar her from recovering noneconomic damages.
The defense also reserved the right to seek attorneys' fees and litigation costs on the ground that the lawsuit was frivolous, citing California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7(c).
Jury Verdict
The jury deliberated and returned a verdict on November 19, 2025. The presiding juror signed the verdict form on that date.
On Question 1, the jury found that Marilyn Bair gave her daughter Susanna Bair permission to operate the vehicle on the day of the accident, March 23, 2023. The jury answered yes.
On Question 2, the jury found that Susanna Bair was not negligent in the operation of the vehicle she drove on March 23, 2023. The jury answered no.
Because the jury answered no on Question 2 finding no negligence on Susanna Bair's part the verdict form directed the jury to stop and proceed no further. The jury did not answer the remaining questions regarding causation, damages, comparative fault of Ducote, or apportionment of responsibility.
The verdict was a complete defense win. Ducote recovered nothing. The jury's finding that Susanna Bair was not negligent ended the inquiry before any question of damages or shared fault was reached.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
