Case Background
Nguyet Thi My Luc filed a personal injury lawsuit against Rony Omar Santos and unnamed Doe Defendants 1 through 10 in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint was electronically filed on December 1, 2022.
Cause
The lawsuit arose from a collision that took place on March 13, 2022, on West Calaveras Boulevard in Santa Clara County. The complaint alleges that Luc was driving eastbound on West Calaveras Boulevard and that Santos and Doe Defendants 6 through 10 were driving the subject vehicle eastbound in the lane to her left when the driver of that vehicle made an abrupt swerve into Luc's lane and collided with her vehicle, causing injury and damages. The complaint alleges that Santos and the Doe Defendants owned or operated the vehicle, and that all Defendants operated it with the knowledge and consent of all other Defendants. The complaint further alleges that Santos and Doe Defendants 6 through 10 acted as agents, employees, or contractors of Doe Defendants 1 through 5, and that Doe Defendants 1 through 5 negligently hired, trained, or supervised Santos and Doe Defendants 6 through 10 in a manner that caused or contributed to the incident. The complaint alleges that Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove, operated, repaired, manufactured, and designed the vehicle so as to cause the collision and the resulting injuries and damages to Luc.
Injury
Luc alleged that the collision caused her personal and bodily injuries, resulting in both economic and noneconomic damages. The complaint states that her economic damages include, without limitation, past and future medical and ancillary expenses, past and future loss of income or earning capacity, loss of her ability to provide household services, and incidental and consequential damages, including property damage and loss of use. The complaint states that her noneconomic damages include, without limitation, past and future physical and mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety, and emotional distress.
Damages Sought
In her prayer for relief, Luc sought noneconomic damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the Court, all medical and incidental expenses according to proof, all loss of earnings according to proof, prejudgment interest to the extent permitted by law, all costs of suit, and any other relief the Court deemed just and proper.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Nguyet Thi My Luc
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Larry Q. Phan
Defendant(s): Rony Omar Santos
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Henry Williams III
Claims
Luc's complaint asserted a single cause of action, for personal injury. She alleged that Santos and Doe Defendants 1 through 10 owned or operated the vehicle involved in the collision and that all Defendants operated it with the knowledge and consent of the other Defendants. She further alleged that Santos and Doe Defendants 6 through 10 acted as agents, employees, or contractors of Doe Defendants 1 through 5, and that Doe Defendants 1 through 5 negligently hired, trained, or supervised Santos and Doe Defendants 6 through 10 in a manner that caused or contributed to the incident. She claimed that Defendants' negligent entrustment, management, maintenance, driving, operation, repair, manufacture, and design of the vehicle caused the collision and her resulting injuries and damages.
Defense
Santos filed his answer on February 8, 2023, denying every allegation in Luc's unverified complaint. He denied that Luc was injured or damaged in any sum due to any carelessness, negligence, act, or omission on his part, and he raised ten affirmative defenses. He argued that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him. He alleged that Luc herself acted carelessly and negligently, and that her own conduct proximately contributed to the incident and her injuries, which he argued either completely barred her recovery or reduced it under the doctrine of comparative negligence. He also alleged that other parties, unnamed individuals, and entities were careless and negligent and contributed to the incident, and that any damages awarded against him should be abated, reduced, or eliminated in proportion to those other parties' percentage of fault.
Santos additionally alleged that Luc failed to mitigate her damages, that she voluntarily and knowingly assumed all risks involved in the situation underlying the complaint, and that her claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. He argued that some or all of her alleged damages and losses were barred under Proposition 213, codified at Civil Code section 3333.4, and that the complaint was barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. He further alleged that Luc had incurred property damage that was paid by her own insurer, and that if her insurer held subrogation rights under her policy, she had failed to join the insurer as a necessary party, citing Ferraro v. Lyle Construction of California (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 33. Finally, Santos alleged that Luc's claim for, and right of, recovery was limited by the doctrine set forth in Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 17 Cal.Rptr. 369, 360 P.2d 641, and further alleged that Luc was in the course and scope of her employment with him; on that basis he argued the Workers' Compensation statutes and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over her claims and that the Court itself lacked jurisdiction over the complaint. Santos demanded a jury trial in his answer.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a special verdict, labeled Special Verdict Form No. 1, dated May 27, 2025. The jury found that Santos was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing Luc's harm. It found Luc's total damages to be $3,834,992.85, itemized as $106,405.30 in past medical expenses, $1,630,205.76 in future medical expenses, $67,000 in past lost household services, $1,026,000 in future lost household services, $75,000 in past non-economic loss, $925,000 in future non-economic loss, and $5,381.79 in damage to personal property.
The jury also found that Luc was negligent and that her negligence was a substantial factor in causing her own harm. Those two findings required the jury to proceed to Question 6 on the verdict form, which called for it to assign a percentage of responsibility to Santos and to Luc, totaling 100 percent. On the copy of the verdict form reviewed, the percentage fields for both parties are blank, and the record does not establish what allocation, if any, the jury reached. The verdict form is dated May 27, 2025.
