She was six years old, crossing in a marked crosswalk, doing exactly what every child is taught to do. A car struck her anyway. She survived, but with a traumatic brain injury that would follow her the rest of her life. The City of Long Beach fought the case hard, arguing design immunity, the legal shield that protects a city from liability for how it designed a roadway, and arguing that her cognitive struggles were not from the crash at all. Then our team found something the City did not expect: a second, unsigned set of crosswalk plans that matched what had actually been built at the intersection, and that differed from what the City claimed it had approved. If what got built was not what got approved, the design immunity defense collapses. In this city dangerous condition injury case, it did, and the matter resolved for $23,015,000 days before trial.
$23M
Resolution days before trial for an injured child
6 years old
Age of the child struck in a marked crosswalk
6 months
California deadline to file a government claim
On January 14, 2017, a six-year-old girl was crossing the street in a marked crosswalk in the City of Long Beach when a vehicle struck her. The impact caused a traumatic brain injury that affected her cognitive function, an injury with consequences that would follow her for the rest of her life. Her family filed suit against the City of Long Beach on January 10, 2018, alleging the crosswalk and intersection design created a dangerous condition of public property that contributed to the crash.
The City of Long Beach built its defense on two pillars. First, design immunity: under California Government Code section 830.6, a public entity is immune from liability for injuries caused by the plan or design of public property if the design was approved in advance by a legislative body or authorized employee exercising discretionary approval authority, and there is substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the design. The City argued its crosswalk and intersection design had been properly approved and was therefore immune. Second, pre-existing cognitive issues: the City argued that the child's cognitive and developmental struggles after the crash were not caused by the traumatic brain injury at all, pointing instead to alleged pre-existing developmental delays, an argument designed to reduce or eliminate the causal connection between the crash and her long-term impairments.
The City could invoke a powerful statutory immunity, so the case turned on proving what was actually approved, what was actually built, and what actually caused the child's brain injury.
Investigation into the design immunity defense turned up a second, unsigned set of crosswalk plans that matched what had actually been constructed at the intersection, unlike the officially approved and signed design documents the City relied on. Design immunity protects only the design that was actually approved, not something different that got built, so the City could not claim immunity for a design it never properly authorized.
Crossing guards and neighbors had previously warned the City about safety concerns at the same intersection before the crash occurred. That evidence, highly relevant to establishing notice, undercut the City's position that the condition was neither dangerous nor known.
The City argued the child's problems predated the collision. Careful medical evidence traced her specific cognitive impairments directly to the traumatic brain injury rather than to any pre-existing developmental condition, answering a causation attack that could otherwise have reduced the value of the case regardless of the strength of the liability evidence.
With the design immunity defense collapsing and the causation argument weakened, the case moved toward trial before Judge Mark C. Kim.
Design immunity is one of the most powerful defenses available to California cities and counties in roadway and intersection injury cases, and many cases end early because a city invokes it and no one digs deep enough to determine whether what was actually built matches what was actually approved. The defense has real limits. It protects only the design actually approved by the appropriate government body, not modifications, deviations, or the design as actually constructed if it differs from what was approved. Two practical points follow. Obtaining and comparing the approved plans against the as-built condition of the roadway is essential, and often requires formal public records requests. And the six-month government tort claim deadline applies to claims against a city, county, or other public entity, far shorter than the two years that generally applies to claims against private parties. This deadline does not pause for medical treatment or the time it takes to find the right attorney, and missing it can end the case before it starts.
Two mediation sessions failed to produce a settlement. With the design immunity defense collapsing and the City's causation argument weakened by strong medical evidence connecting the crash to the child's cognitive impairments, the case proceeded toward trial before Judge Mark C. Kim in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Just days before trial was set to begin, the City of Long Beach agreed to resolve the matter for $23,015,000. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and every case turns on its own facts. The Homampour Law Firm handles catastrophic injury cases against government entities on a contingency fee basis, advancing the costs of the case, so families pay nothing unless there is a recovery.
The breakdowns below cover proving actual and constructive notice, traffic control device liability, using the Public Records Act to unlock municipal evidence, strategy against municipal defendants, and traffic signal and streetlight liability.
Actual and constructive notice under 835.2
Signage, signals, and design immunity
Records requests that unlock a case
We try catastrophic injury cases against government defendants as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseOn January 14, 2017, a six-year-old girl was struck by a vehicle while crossing in a marked crosswalk in the City of Long Beach, sustaining a traumatic brain injury with long-term cognitive effects.
Investigation uncovered a second, unsigned set of crosswalk plans matching what was actually built, which differed from the officially approved plans the City relied on, showing the City could not claim immunity for a design it never properly approved.
California requires a government tort claim to be presented within six months of the injury, a much shorter deadline than the two years generally available in claims against private parties, and missing it can bar the case.
