Case Background
Plaintiff Frank Valles, an employee of the Los Angeles County Probation Department, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Defendant Terrence Andra Cross, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and the Defendant City of Los Angeles. The legal action originated from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on April 13, 2018, in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Valles was riding as a front seat passenger in the LAPD vehicle when Officer Cross, who had been driving northbound on Washington Boulevard, attempted a left turn at the intersection of Hooper Avenue. The Complaint alleged that Officer Cross turned in front of an oncoming vehicle traveling southbound, causing a catastrophic impact that severely injured Mr. Valles. The subsequent litigation became a major test of employer responsibility, as Mr. Valles sought to hold the City of Los Angeles accountable for the on-the-job actions of its employee.
Cause
The core cause of action in the Complaint was general negligence related to the operation of a motor vehicle.
The Plaintiff asserted that Officer Cross, while acting within the course and scope of his employment, drove his official 2006 Ford Crown Victoria negligently. Specifically, the officer executed an unsafe and illegal left turn, failing to yield to traffic that had the right of way. This failure to operate the police vehicle with due care directly resulted in the collision.
The Complaint further invoked California Vehicle Code Section 17001, which establishes that a public entity is legally responsible for death or injury proximately caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of any motor vehicle by an employee of the public entity, when the employee acts within the scope of their employment. Because the officer was on duty and driving a police vehicle during the incident, the City of Los Angeles legally inherited the financial liability for the officer’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior, or "let the master answer."
Injury
Following the serious traffic accident, Mr. Valles reported that he sustained significant personal injuries. While the specific medical details were not disclosed in the general filings, the nature of the collision a car turning directly into oncoming traffic suggested injuries were severe. The injuries led to considerable pain and suffering, the necessity of extensive medical treatment, and potential long-term impairment. The Plaintiff also claimed he incurred substantial medical and hospital expenses and lost considerable income and earning capacity due as a direct result of being incapacitated by the accident.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought full compensatory damages to cover all economic and non-economic losses. Economic damages included all past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of future earning capacity. Non-economic damages were meant to compensate Mr. Valles for the physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life that the injuries inflicted upon him. The total amount requested ran into millions of dollars, reflecting the severity and lasting impact of the injuries.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, set the stage for a dramatic conflict between an injured County employee and the municipality responsible for the officer who caused the crash. The case involved complex pre-trial discovery, depositions, and numerous attempts by both sides to gain leverage.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Frank Valles
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Justin D. Feldman | Bruno Keith John
Defendant(s): Terrence Andra Cross | the City of Los Angeles
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Dordaneh Ghaemi | Michael N. Feuer. | Julius Mark
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiff’s legal team emphasized that Officer Cross had violated basic rules of the road by failing to safely execute a left turn at the busy Los Angeles intersection. They argued that because Mr. Valles was merely a passenger in the police car and played no role in the driving, the evidence of Officer Cross’s sole negligence was overwhelming. Furthermore, they adamantly stressed the City of Los Angeles’s legal obligation under California law to accept financial liability for the officer’s negligent acts since he was driving on official business when the crash occurred.
Defense
The defense team, representing the City of Los Angeles and Officer Cross, fought vigorously to minimize the City's exposure. They issued a blanket denial of negligence in their Answer, arguing that Officer Cross had exercised reasonable care or that other factors, including the possible speed of the southbound vehicle, contributed to the collision. Critically, the defense asserted standard affirmative defenses, including comparative fault, arguing that if the jury found liability, Mr. Valles's own actions or omissions played a role in his injuries, thereby reducing any potential damage award.
Settlement
The complex personal injury case never reached a jury verdict. Instead, the parties entered into a final settlement agreement to resolve the claims outside of the Courtroom.
Following extensive negotiations, the City of Los Angeles and Frank Valles, through their respective legal teams, reached a formal agreement on the financial terms to resolve the entire dispute. The City of Los Angeles paid a substantial sum to the Plaintiff, officially settling all claims of negligence, injury, and liability related to the April 2018 collision. The agreed-upon settlement amount that ended the civil action totaled $7,250,000. This large payout demonstrated that the City acknowledged significant risk of exposure had the case proceeded to trial, where a jury might have rendered an even higher award based on the severe injuries Mr. Valles had sustained while riding in the police vehicle. The settlement concluded the legal chapter for both Mr. Valles, who received compensation for his substantial losses, and the City of Los Angeles, which avoided further litigation costs and the uncertainty of a public verdict.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
