Five daughters lost their father on August 7, 2018. He was not a perfect man. He struggled with addiction and had been without stable housing at points in his life. But he was, in every way that mattered to his daughters, present, the parent who hugged them and who made all five of them laugh in the same photograph, again and again, for over twenty years. City of Victorville employees killed him that day, and the city admitted it. The only question left for a San Bernardino jury in this wrongful death damages case California families can bring against a public entity was what his life, and his love for his five girls, was worth. On October 6, 2022, the jury answered: $34 million.
$34M
San Bernardino jury verdict
5
Daughters who each recovered for their loss
6 months
California deadline to file a government claim
On August 7, 2018, at the intersection of Bear Valley Road and 5th Avenue in Victorville, California, three City of Victorville street workers were out painting road lines. During an altercation with the father of these five girls, city employees caused injuries that killed him. The City of Victorville did not contest that its employees caused his death. It formally stipulated, before trial, that it was fully liable, with no fault assigned to him. The case went to trial as a pure damages case: the only question for the jury was how much the loss was worth to five daughters who no longer had a father.
Because the City of Victorville could not dispute causation, its entire trial strategy shifted to minimizing damages. The way it tried to do that was by attacking who the father was as a person. The City pointed to his struggles with addiction. It pointed to periods of homelessness. It built a narrative, using the police report and surrounding facts, designed to make him look unworthy of a large damages award, as though a hard life meant a life that mattered less to the people who loved him. California law does not discount a person's value, or a family's loss, because that person had a difficult past.
The defense conceded causation, so the case turned entirely on proving what five daughters actually lost.
Photographs submitted in the case showed five girls of different ages, all smiling at once, all looking at their dad, over and over from 1996 through 2016. That objective record of an ongoing, loving relationship was difficult for a defendant to argue around.
Each daughter testified about who her father was to her, hardships and all, in specific and personal terms. Five witnesses describing distinct memories that converged on the same present father built a credible, cumulative picture.
Rather than hide the addiction and the homelessness, the firm addressed them directly and reframed the question for the jury: not whether the father overcame every struggle, but whether the relationships he built with his daughters, despite those struggles, had real and substantial value.
The jury credited the relationship evidence and rejected the effort to discount a father's life.
When a government employee causes a death while on the job, California law holds the public entity responsible in the same way any employer answers for what its employees do within the course and scope of employment. A city cannot escape responsibility just because it employs its workers under a government badge rather than a corporate one. There is a catch that families need to understand immediately. Claims against a city, county, or other public entity require a formal government tort claim within just six months of the incident, far shorter than the two years that generally applies to claims against private parties. This deadline does not pause for grief, funeral arrangements, or the time it takes to find the right attorney, and missing it usually bars the claim permanently.
On October 6, 2022, a San Bernardino County jury awarded $34 million to the five surviving daughters, presided over by Judge Brian McCarville in San Bernardino Superior Court, Department S30. Every daughter received the same award regardless of age or how much time she had already spent grieving. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The Homampour Law Firm handles wrongful death 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 heirs priority under CCP 377.60, proof of non-economic damages, future earnings loss when the decedent had no steady income, and expert economist selection.
Heirs priority under CCP 377.60
Non-economic damages proof
Future earnings loss strategy
Expert economist strategy
We try catastrophic and wrongful death cases against government defendants as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseOn August 7, 2018, the father was fatally injured by City of Victorville employees at Bear Valley Road and 5th Avenue in Victorville, California, while three city street workers were painting road lines. The City of Victorville admitted full liability before trial, with no fault assigned to him.
Yes. A California city can be sued for wrongful death when its employees cause a death while acting in the course and scope of their employment, under the same basic principles that apply to any employer. California's Government Claims Act requires filing a formal government tort claim within six months of the incident before a lawsuit can proceed.
You generally have only six months from the date of injury or death to file a government tort claim against a California city or public entity, compared to the standard two-year deadline for claims against private parties. Missing this deadline usually bars the claim entirely, so families should contact an attorney immediately.
