Case Background
A San Bernardino County jury ruled in favor of a driver who was seriously injured when a commercial truck merged into his lane on Interstate 10 in Ontario, California. The verdict, returned on March 6, 2026, held a trucking company and the State of California jointly responsible for the crash, while also finding the Plaintiff partially at fault.
Cause
The collision took place on or about May 8, 2020, on eastbound I-10 near Euclid Avenue in Ontario, California. Gabriel Gonzalez Olguin was lawfully driving in his lane when Allan Clay Pruitt, who was operating a commercial truck, merged into Olguin's lane without warning or caution. The truck struck Olguin's vehicle with significant force. Pruitt drove on behalf of Keystone Freight Corp., a Pennsylvania-based trucking company, and the truck was leased through Penske Truck Leasing Corporation, a Delaware corporation. The lawsuit also targeted three public entities the City of Ontario, the County of San Bernardino, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for allegedly allowing modified and unmarked driving lanes to remain in disrepair at the crash site without proper barricades or warnings.
Injury
Olguin suffered serious bodily injuries from the crash. His claimed injuries included physical pain, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, scarring, anxiety, and humiliation. He also incurred substantial medical bills, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and property damage to his vehicle.
Damages Sought
Olguin filed his complaint on November 17, 2020, as an unlimited civil case exceeding $25,000. He sought compensatory damages according to proof, prejudgment interest under Civil Code Sections 3287, 3288, and 3291, costs of suit, and any additional relief the Court found appropriate.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Gabriel Gonzalez Olguin
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Daniel Azizi
Defendants: Allan Clay Pruitt | Penske Truck Leasing Corporation | Keystone Freight Corp. | City of Ontario | County of San Bernardino | State of California (Department of Transportation | Does 1 to 50
· Counsel for Defendant (State of California/Caltrans): Erin E. Holbrook | Jerald M. Montoya | Steven J. Dadaian | Erick L. Solares | Julie Del Rivo | Heidi Skinner | Kirsten R. Bowman | Richard A. Capella
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff's counsel argued that Pruitt recklessly and carelessly merged into Olguin's lane in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21658, which requires drivers to stay within a single marked lane until a lane change can be made safely. Counsel further argued that the public entities allowed dangerous road conditions specifically, modified and unmarked lanes to persist without adequate warnings or barriers, making the roadway unsafe for motorists.
The State's counsel denied all allegations and mounted a broad defense centered on governmental immunity, comparative fault, and the argument that Caltrans neither owned nor controlled the roadway where the collision occurred.
Claims
Motor Vehicle Negligence: Olguin alleged that Pruitt negligently operated the commercial truck, causing the collision. Penske Truck Leasing Corporation and Keystone Freight Corp. were named as the companies that employed Pruitt, owned the vehicle, and entrusted it to him. Olguin argued that all three bore responsibility for the crash.
General Negligence: Olguin alleged that Pruitt and the trucking companies acted negligently, recklessly, and with total disregard for public safety. He cited their conduct as negligence per se under Vehicle Code Section 21658, pointing to the unsafe lane change as a direct violation of the statute. He claimed that these actions directly and proximately caused his injuries, medical expenses, lost income, property damage, and ongoing pain and suffering.
Premises Liability — Dangerous Condition of Public Property: Olguin alleged that the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, and the State of California owned, maintained, and controlled the stretch of I-10 where the crash occurred. He argued that modified and unmarked driving lanes created a dangerous condition on the roadway. The claim was brought under Government Code Sections 835 and 815.2. Olguin's counsel confirmed that government tort claims were served on each public entity before the lawsuit was filed — the City of Ontario rejected the claim on November 3, 2020, while the County of San Bernardino and the State of California had not responded to claims served in April 2019.
Defense
The State of California, acting through Caltrans, filed its answer on June 25, 2021. The State denied every allegation and raised fourteen affirmative defenses.
The State argued that the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action against Caltrans. It claimed that Olguin assumed the risk of whatever hazard existed at the scene. It asserted that Olguin's own carelessness contributed to the accident and that any damages should be reduced in proportion to his share of fault under Civil Code Section 1431.2.
On the governmental immunity front, the State contended that its employees exercised reasonable diligence in performing mandatory duties (Government Code Section 815.6), that the relevant decisions were discretionary and therefore protected (Section 820.2), that the road conditions were reasonable (Section 835.4), and that the road design complied with approved plans and specifications (Section 830.6). The State also argued it was not liable for failing to provide regulatory traffic signs or warnings under Sections 830.4 and 830.8.
Additionally, the State denied that it owned, maintained, or controlled the road at the crash location, and denied that any individuals named in the complaint were its employees or agents. Finally, the State invoked Proposition 213 (Civil Code Section 3333.4) to argue that Olguin's recovery should be limited to economic losses only, excluding compensation for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and other non-economic damages.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its special verdict on March 6, 2026, ruling largely in favor of the Plaintiff.
The jury found Keystone Freight Corp. negligent and determined that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Olguin. On the premises liability claim, the jury found that Caltrans owned the property where the crash occurred, that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time, that the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of this type of injury, that Caltrans had notice of the danger long enough to have taken protective measures, and that the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm.
The jury also found Olguin himself negligent and concluded that his own negligence was a substantial factor in causing his injuries.
Total Damages Awarded: $2,000,000
The jury broke down the damages as follows: $278,000 in past medical expenses, $110,000 in future medical expenses, $815,000 in past pain and suffering, and $797,000 in future pain and suffering.
Allocation of Fault
The jury assigned 65% of the responsibility to Keystone Freight Corp., 10% to the California Department of Transportation, and 25% to Gabriel Gonzalez Olguin. The Lane Security Paving, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, and CalStripe were each assigned 0% responsibility.
