Case Background
Eileen Winder brought a lawsuit against the City of Ontario and Adrian Paul Torrez in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District. Winder named the City of Ontario as a public entity Defendant and Adrian Paul Torrez, an individual, as a co-Defendant, along with Does 1 through 30. She asserted two causes of action: motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. The case was filed as an unlimited civil case, meaning the damages sought exceeded $25,000.
Cause
Winder alleged that a collision occurred on July 20, 2020, on Interstate 10 westbound, 150 feet west of Haven Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, California. She alleged that Torrez, a waste management truck driver employed by the City of Ontario, was operating the vehicle at the direction or instruction of the City and drove it in a negligent manner, causing it to collide with the vehicle she occupied. She alleged the Defendants breached a duty to operate the vehicle in a reasonable manner by driving in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21658(a).
Injury
Winder claimed she suffered personal injuries and property damage in the collision. Her complaint indicated that she experienced wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, loss of earning capacity, and costs as allowed by statute.
Damages Sought
Winder sought compensatory damages according to proof, along with costs of suit and any other relief the Court considered fair, just, and equitable. She did not seek punitive damages; that box on her complaint was left unchecked.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Eileen Winder
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): David W. Allor | Paul B. Hundley | Birgit Dominguez,
Defendant(s): City of Ontario and Adrian Paul Torrez
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Robert J. Gokoo | Stephen M. Harber | Camille M. Suarkeo
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Winder alleged that Torrez operated a motor vehicle in the course of his employment with the City of Ontario, and that the City owned the vehicle and had entrusted it to him. Her general negligence claim relied on Government Code sections 815.2(a), 815.4, 815.6, 820(a), 835, and 840.2, arguing that a public entity can be held liable for the acts or omissions of an employee acting within the scope of employment.
Defense
The City of Ontario answered the complaint with a general denial under Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, denying that Winder had been injured or damaged in the manner alleged or in any other manner. The City specifically denied that any property it owned, controlled, or maintained was defective, unsafe, or dangerous. The Answer then raised seventeen separate affirmative defenses. These included assumption of risk, comparative fault of other parties, Winder's own alleged negligence in caring for herself, failure to mitigate damages, and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The city also argued that the claims were barred under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 335.1, 338, and 342, and asserted governmental immunity under Government Code Sections 818.6, 820, 820.8, 821.4, 840, 840.2, and 840.6. The city further claimed it had engaged in a discretionary act protected under Government Code Sections 820.2 and 815.2(b) and argued that the conduct alleged was not a substantial factor in causing the claimed injuries, having instead been superseded by an independent, intervening cause. Citing California Civil Code Section 1431.2, the City argued that any liability it might bear for non-economic damages should be limited to its proportional share of fault and should be several, not joint. The city demanded a jury trial on April 21, 2022.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to trial in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, before Judge Kory Mathewson in Department R12.
The jury deliberated and returned its verdict on May 28, 2025. Using a special verdict form, the jury addressed the first question, which asked whether Adrian Paul Torrez had been negligent in operating the vehicle. The jury answered "No." Because the verdict form instructed jurors to stop and answer no further questions if they answered the first question in the negative, the jury did not go on to address whether any negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm, what damages Winder had proved, or any comparative fault between the parties. The presiding juror signed and dated the special verdict form on May 28, 2025.
Based on this verdict, the Court entered judgment in favor of both the City of Ontario and Adrian Paul Torrez and against Eileen Winder. The judgment was filed on July 16, 2025. It states that the Defendants, as the prevailing parties, would be entitled to recover their costs against Winder, to be determined once the Defendants submitted a memorandum of costs, and that the Court would enter an amended judgment reflecting those costs once awarded. Judge Kory Mathewson signed the judgment on July 16, 2025.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
