The Motor Vehicle Collision: What Happened
This motor vehicle collision occurred on September 12, 2020, at approximately 10:16 p.m. at the intersection of the I-5 South offramp and H Street in Chula Vista, California. My clients were exiting the I-5 freeway at the H Street offramp and came to a complete stop in the no. 1 left-turn lane leading to H Street. After waiting for the traffic signal to turn green, they proceeded into the intersection. As they moved approximately one car length forward, their vehicle was broadsided by a City police officer who was en route to a service call, traveling at approximately 33 to 35 mph.
The impact of the collision pushed my client’s vehicle approximately six feet sideways into a Ford F-150 pickup truck on its right side. The collision resulted in significant body intrusion on both the driver and passenger sides of my client’s vehicle.
What The Traffic Collision Report Concluded
The traffic collision report prepared by the Police Department concluded that the police officer was at fault for the collision for running a red light. During her deposition, the officer admitted to running the red light. Her explanation was that the configuration of three separate traffic signal lights along westbound H Street was confusing, and she mistakenly interpreted a green light a block away as applying to her location at the offramp intersection. Two additional city police officers testified similarly, acknowledging the signal layout to be confusing and potentially dangerous.
However, during deposition, none of the three officers had ever reported this purportedly confusing signal configuration to the City’s engineering department or any supervisory personnel. Plaintiffs contend that this “confusing signal” defense is a red herring without merit.
The Truth Revealed Itself After A Thorough Investigation
To further investigate, we retained a biomechanical expert who photographed and recorded the traffic signal sequences from one end of the H Street bridge over the I-5. The expert concluded that there is nothing confusing about the signal layout or placement. Moreover, we obtained the body camera footage from the at-fault officer, capturing the 30 seconds leading up to the collision. The footage reveals her body camera angled slightly to the right, showing her hand interacting with her cell phone, which was resting on a laptop tray mounted to the dashboard.
The video clearly shows that she was distracted, looking toward her cell phone rather than at the road ahead. Importantly, the bodycam footage captures the red light she failed to observe at the moment of impact.
Although the officer denied being on a phone call or actively texting during her deposition, she admitted to using Google Maps on her phone to navigate to the service call location. She was not responding to an emergency and had no lights or sirens activated, and therefore was required to obey all traffic laws.
Partial, redacted cell phone records obtained through her attorney revealed that between 10:05 p.m. and 10:15 p.m., she sent three texts and received five texts. The last incoming text was received at 10:15 p.m.—one minute before the 10:16 p.m. crash. We firmly believed the officer was reading a text at the time of the collision, causing her to miss the red light due to inattention. Regardless of whether she was looking at Google Maps or reading a text, she was distracted behind the wheel.
Ultimately, we successfully resolved this preventable red-light injury case through a favorable settlement, just months before it was set to proceed to jury trial.
If you or someone you know needs an experienced personal injury trial lawyer, please feel free to contact me, Mark C. Blane, at (619) 813-7955. You may also download one of my free Injury Guide eBooks directly from my website at www.blanelaw.com.
