Case Background
Candice Stevensen filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on July 27, 2022. She brought the case against Victoria Diodati, Francisco Ponce, and Does 1 to 100. The Court assigned the matter case number 22CV402217 and treated it as an unlimited civil case, meaning the amount in dispute exceeded $25,000.
Cause
The lawsuit grew out of two separate car crashes. The first happened on September 3, 2020. Stevensen drove north on Middlefield Road near the intersection with Loma Verde Avenue in Palo Alto. According to the complaint, Victoria Diodati suddenly turned left out of the southbound lanes and cut across the northbound lanes in front of her. Stevensen braked hard and swerved to the left to avoid a side impact, but she could not avoid the collision. The complaint stated that Diodati was distracted at the time because she was ordering coffee on her phone app.
The second crash happened on December 9, 2020. Stevensen sat stopped at a red light in the left turn lane of El Camino Real at Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto. The light had just turned green, but no car had moved forward yet, when Francisco Ponce struck her vehicle from behind.
Stevensen claimed that both drivers acted negligently and that their actions caused her injuries and losses.
Injury
The complaint described several types of harm that Stevensen said she suffered as a result of the two collisions. She reported wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, loss of earning capacity, and the loss of her ability to provide household services.
Damages Sought
Stevensen asked the Court for compensatory damages according to proof, along with the costs of the suit and any other relief the Court found fair and just. She did not seek punitive damages. Because the case fell under the unlimited civil category, the claimed damages went beyond $25,000.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Candice Stevensen
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Louis S. Abronson
Defendant: Francisco Ponce | Victoria Diodati
· Counsel for Defendant: Akhila Ganapathy | Amy Carlson
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The uploaded documents do not record any direct remarks or arguments made by counsel during trial.
Claims
Stevensen built her case on two motor vehicle claims, one against each driver. She argued that Victoria Diodati turned left without yielding and caused the first crash, and that the crash directly led to her injuries and financial losses. She argued that Francisco Ponce caused the second crash when he rear-ended her stopped car, and that this collision added to her harm. She tied both crashes together as the source of a single set of damages and asked the jury to hold the drivers responsible according to their fault.
Defense
Francisco Ponce filed his answer to the complaint on October 27, 2022. He denied every allegation that pointed to him and denied that Stevensen had suffered the losses she claimed. He raised five affirmative defenses. First, he argued comparative negligence, claiming that Stevensen's own failure to act as a reasonably careful person caused or added to her injuries, which should reduce or bar her recovery. Second, he argued that the complaint failed to state facts strong enough to support a cause of action against him. Third, he raised apportionment, arguing that people other than himself, including the Doe Defendants, caused the damages, and that the Court should divide responsibility by each party's share of fault. Fourth, he argued that Stevensen failed to reduce her own damages. Fifth, he argued that the negligence of other people served as an intervening and superseding cause of any harm. Ponce also demanded a jury trial.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial starting January 6, 2026, before Judge Hayashi. The jury returned its special verdict on January 16, 2026, and worked through a series of questions to sort out fault and damages.
The jury first looked at Victoria Diodati. It found that she had not fully complied with California Vehicle Code Section 21801(a), the law that requires a driver making a left turn to yield to oncoming traffic. Because of that answer, the verdict form directed the jury to skip the separate negligence question and move ahead. The jury then found that Diodati's negligence or failure to comply with that law served as a substantial factor in causing harm to Stevensen.
The jury next decided the total damages. It set Stevensen's future economic loss for medical expenses at $150,000. It listed no amount for other future economic loss. It set past noneconomic loss, covering physical pain and mental suffering, at $200,000, and future noneconomic loss for the same kind of harm at $100,000. The total damages came to $450,000. The jury reached this figure without reducing it for Stevensen's own fault or for the role of other factors.
The jury then turned to Stevensen's own conduct. Following the form's instructions, it skipped the question about her compliance with California Vehicle Code Section 21801(b) and moved to the negligence question. The jury found that Stevensen had been negligent and that her negligence served as a substantial factor in causing her harm.
Turning to Francisco Ponce, the jury found that his negligence had also served as a substantial factor in causing harm to Stevensen.
Finally, the jury divided responsibility for the harm among the three people. It assigned 55 percent of the fault to Victoria Diodati, 10 percent to Francisco Ponce, and 35 percent to Candice Stevensen. The three shares added up to 100 percent. The presiding juror signed and dated the verdict form on January 16, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
