Case Background
This lawsuit arose from a vehicle-versus-bicycle collision that took place on October 21, 2020, in Hesperia, California. Scott Souter was riding his bicycle along Maple Avenue when an oncoming motor vehicle struck him. The incident occurred on public property under the operational ownership and maintenance of the City of Hesperia. Believing that a combination of driver carelessness and an unsafe public roadway layout caused the wreck, Scott Souter and his wife, Amy Souter, initiated an unlimited civil personal injury action against both the driver and the municipality to seek financial recovery for the catastrophic disruptions to their lives.
Cause
On October 21, 2020, Scott Souter traveled on his bicycle along Maple Avenue, roughly 670 feet north of El Cerrito in Hesperia, California. During this ride, a motor vehicle operated by Sandra Gonzalez-Rodriguez struck him. The collision took place on public premises owned, maintained, managed, and operated by the City of Hesperia.
Injury
The collision inflicted severe physical injuries and subsequent personal harm upon Scott Souter. The trauma left him with significant financial losses, including past lost wages and an ongoing requirement for future medical treatment. He also suffered major past and future non-economic losses, which encompassed physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, and emotional distress. His wife, Amy Souter, suffered a past and future loss of consortium, which legally deprived her of her husband's love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs filed an unlimited civil lawsuit seeking compensatory damages according to proof, alongside the costs of the suit, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest. On their initial complaint, they marked specific categories of recovery, including wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, loss of earning capacity, and loss of consortium. The financial threshold of the demand qualified the action as an unlimited civil case exceeding $25,000.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Scott Souter | Amy Souter
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jacob D. Flesher | Jeffrey Michael Schaff
Defendant(s): City of Hesperia | Sandra Gonzalez-Rodriguez
Counsel for Defendant(s): Jessica E. Carranza
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs asserted distinct legal theories to establish liability against the driver and the municipality for the collision.
Motor Vehicle Negligence
The Plaintiffs argued that Sandra Gonzalez-Rodriguez operated her motor vehicle in a careless and negligent manner. They asserted that her negligent driving served as the direct legal and proximate cause of the collision, which subsequently brought severe bodily injury and financial harm upon Scott Souter.
Premises Liability and Dangerous Condition of Public Property
The Plaintiffs targeted the City of Hesperia for premises liability, claiming that a dangerous condition existed on the public roadway at the time of the crash. They maintained that the municipality or its employees actively created this hazard, or alternatively, that the public entity held actual or constructive notice of the danger in sufficient time prior to the injury to have safely corrected the layout. They also alleged a willful failure to warn, stating that the city failed to guard or warn recreational users against a known dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.
Defense
Sandra Gonzalez-Rodriguez filed an answer that denied, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation of wrongdoing set forth in the complaint. She raised multiple affirmative defenses to dispute liability and reduce potential recovery.
Comparative Fault and Third-Party Negligence
The defense claimed that Scott Souter acted in a negligent, careless, or otherwise at-fault manner during his bicycle ride, making his own conduct the primary and sole cause of the incident and resulting injuries. She argued that any recovery should be barred or diminished to the extent of his fault. Additionally, the defense alleged that any acts or omissions on her part were superseded or intervened by the independent acts of others, including Scott Souter's employer.
Statutory Protections and Failure to Mitigate
The defense raised Proposition 51 to limit joint and several liability regarding non-economic damages. She also asserted that Scott Souter owned or operated a vehicle that was not insured as required by California Financial Responsibility Laws, which would statutorily bar him from collecting non-economic damages under Civil Code Section 3333.4. Finally, the defense argued that the Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care, diligence, or efforts to mitigate their damages or minimize losses.
Jury Verdict
The civil trial concluded before Department V12 of the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino. The jury received the case and returned a completed special verdict form on June 2, 2026.
The jury determined that Sandra Gonzalez-Rodriguez acted negligently and that her negligence served as a substantial factor in causing harm to Scott Souter and Amy Souter. When assessing comparative fault, the jury evaluated whether Scott Souter was personally negligent for the collision and explicitly found that he was not negligent. Because the jury answered "No" to the question of Plaintiff negligence, they followed Court instructions to answer no further questions regarding liability percentages, leaving the final responsibility entirely on the defense.
The jury calculated total individual damages for Scott Souter at $24,925,015.00. They broke down his specific economic and non-economic losses through the following items:
Past Non-economic Loss: $3,100,000.00
Past Lost Wages: $1,036,524.00
Present Value of Future Medical Treatment: $8,788,491.00
Future Non-Economic Loss: $12,000,000.00
The jury calculated total separate damages for Amy Souter at $3,175,000.00 to address her personal losses stemming from the incident. They broke down her specific loss of consortium through the following items:
Past Loss of Consortium: $1,675,000.00
Future Loss of Consortium: $1,500,000.00
The presiding juror officially signed and dated the completed verdict form on June 2, 2026, before notifying the Court attendant that they were ready to present the verdict in the Courtroom.
