2025’s Biggest California Wrongful Death Cases: Four Landmark Outcomes

California juries are making it clear: when a death could have been prevented, the financial consequences can be huge. In 2025, some of the state’s largest wrongful death verdicts showed a clear change in how jurors view loss, corporate responsibility, and deterrence. Some believe this shift is tied to a post-COVID perspective, where the human cost of wrongful death feels more real and personal, leading to higher verdicts.

Wrongful Death Cases in California in 2025: Significant Examples

These three cases show that landmark wrongful death outcomes in California can look very different. They include a record jury verdict against a large company, a major settlement with a public agency over alleged system failures, and a published appellate decision that could change how damages are handled in future cases. Each case highlights a different way to achieve accountability and shows why wrongful death litigation was a major focus in 2025.

Case #1: Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV05513

A Summary of the Case: The plaintiffsSummary of the Case: The plaintiffs are the family or estate of Mae K. Moore, who are either wrongful death survivors or estate representatives, depending on the legal filings. The defendants are Johnson & Johnson and other related companies. The lawsuit claimed that Mae K. Moore’s illness and death were caused by asbestos exposure from the defendants’ products, and that the companies failed to provide warnings or acted improperly.

The case is a landmark 2025 California wrongful death case because of the sheer size of the award. Such a large amount signifies the continued escalation of “nuclear verdict” risk in California wrongful death/product exposure matters and the willingness of juries to impose extraordinary damages in cases involving alleged corporate safety failures.

Case #2: County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (related to the Noah Cuatro wrongful death civil case)

Court: California Court of Appeals

Case No.: B339093 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 4)

Attached to Trial Case No. 20STCV24771 filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court

Summary of the Case: Evangelina “Eva” Hernandez, both personally and as the legal representative for the child’s estate and siblings, filed a wrongful death lawsuit. She claimed that child welfare authorities failed to protect the child and did not act on clear warning signs of danger, including not following through on protective steps mentioned in the court record. In September 2025, LA County supervisors agreed to a $20 million settlement with the child’s family.

The Noah Cuatro wrongful death case was one of the most notable public-entity settlements in California in 2025. It brought attention to system accountability and involved a large settlement and significant public attention.

Case #3: Ng v. Superior Court

Case No.: G064257 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3)

Underlying Trial Court Case Info: Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2023-01360050

Summary of the Case: Joely Ng sued Los Alamitos Medical Center and doctors for medical malpractice and wrongful death after her husband, Kenneth Ng, allegedly received negligent care following a G-tube problem and improper placement. Ng developed sepsis and died three months later. The case led to a published appellate decision about whether wrongful death and survival or medical negligence claims can each have separate MICRA noneconomic damage caps, which is a key issue in California medical malpractice and wrongful death cases.

Ng v. Superior Court is a landmark 2025 wrongful death case because it changes how damages can be claimed and valued in medical malpractice wrongful death cases. It clarifies how wrongful death and survival claims are treated under MICRA’s cap rules.

Wrongful death cases are about more than just money, but the 2025 outcomes show something important: California juries and courts are more willing to impose serious consequences when families claim a preventable loss was caused by corporate wrongdoing, system failures, or poor care. Whether the result is a large verdict, a major public settlement, or a new legal precedent, the main theme is accountability and the need for careful, evidence-based legal work from the start.

If your family has lost a loved one and you think negligence or wrongdoing was involved, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you learn about your legal options and what to do next. Contact our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to talk about how you may be able to seek accountability under California law.

Can a Company Be Liable for Wrongful Death Based on a Teen’s Interactions With an AI Chatbot?

In Raine v. OpenAI Inc., a family filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that a teenager’s interactions with an AI chatbot contributed to his death.

Case: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

Court: California Superior Court, San Francisco County

Case No.: CGC25628528

The Plaintiff: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

The plaintiffs are the family of Adam Raine, a California high school student who died by suicide at age 16. The family alleges that interactions with ChatGPT played a role in his death and that OpenAI should be held responsible under wrongful death and related civil theories.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

OpenAI Inc. is the defendant in this case. OpenAI is an artificial intelligence company that develops and operates ChatGPT, a consumer-facing chatbot product. The family also sued OpenAI’s chief executive officer in connection with the same events.

A Brief History of the Raine v. OpenAI Case

The family filed suit in San Francisco County Superior Court, asserting claims that include wrongful death, product liability, and negligence. In response, OpenAI filed court papers disputing the allegation that ChatGPT caused the death and describing the teen as having had significant risk factors for self-harm before using the product. OpenAI’s filing also claims that ChatGPT repeatedly encouraged the teen to seek support from trusted individuals and crisis resources, stating that this occurred more than 100 times.

Following the wrongful death lawsuit, OpenAI announced changes to ChatGPT, including added controls that allow parents to limit how teenagers use the chatbot and alerts if the system determines a teenager may be in distress. The case remains active, and the court has not yet issued final findings designating liability.

The Main Question in the Case

Can OpenAI be held legally responsible for wrongful death and related civil claims based on a teenager’s interactions with an AI chatbot?

The Allegations: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

Based on the verified summary you provided, the lawsuit includes allegations such as:

1. Wrongful Death: The family of the deceased teen alleges the product’s conduct and/or failures contributed to their child’s death and that the defendant should be held liable for the resulting loss.

2. Product Liability: The complaint asserts the consumer product was unsafe as designed, lacked adequate safeguards, and failed to provide adequate warnings for foreseeable use and misuse.

3. Negligence: The lawsuit also alleges negligence, which typically centers on whether the company acted reasonably in designing, deploying, monitoring, and updating a product used by the public, including minors.

OpenAI disputes these allegations and argues that the product was not the cause of the death based on the overall chat history and the teen’s preexisting risk factors described in its filing.

OpenAI’s Defense Position as Described in the Court Filing

The company’s response to the wrongful death lawsuit emphasized several key themes:

* Tragedy acknowledged, causation denied: OpenAI described the death as a tragedy but asserted it was not caused by ChatGPT, citing the full chat history as evidence.

* Safety prompts and directing the user to seek help: OpenAI stated that ChatGPT directed the teen to connect with crisis resources and trusted individuals more than 100 times.

* Preexisting risk factors: OpenAI asserted the teen exhibited significant risk factors for self-harm before he ever used ChatGPT.

* Company changes after the lawsuit: After the suit was filed, OpenAI announced new controls for parents and alert mechanisms for potential teen distress.

When considering the defensive arguments, the court will have to consider the evidence, any applicable legal standards, and its own evaluation of foreseeability, causation, and duty.

FAQ: Raine v. OpenAI Inc.

Q: What is a wrongful death claim?

A: A wrongful death claim is a civil action brought by certain surviving family members or representatives seeking damages after a person dies due to another party’s alleged wrongful act or neglect.

Q: What does “product liability” usually mean in a lawsuit like this?

A: Product liability claims generally allege a product was unsafe due to design, inadequate warnings, or insufficient safeguards, and that the unsafe condition contributed to harm.

Q: Does an AI company automatically become liable if a user is harmed after using the product?

A: Not automatically. Liability typically depends on duty, breach, causation, and damages, along with defenses such as warnings, safety measures, user conduct, and whether the harm was foreseeable and substantially caused by the product.

Q: What is the case’s current posture based on what’s been shared?

A: The case has been filed, and OpenAI has responded with arguments disputing causation and emphasizing safety prompts. The court has not yet made final findings on liability.

Q: Why do companies change products after lawsuits are filed?

A: Companies sometimes update safeguards, warnings, and controls in response to risk concerns, public scrutiny, or internal reviews. Those changes do not necessarily determine liability, but they can become part of the broader story in litigation.

If you lost a loved one and believe a company’s product design, safety failures, or negligent conduct contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.

Did Johnson & Johnson Face a Nearly $1 Billion Wrongful Death Verdict Over Alleged Asbestos-Contaminated Talc?

In Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., a Los Angeles jury awarded nearly $1 billion to the family of an 88-year-old woman who developed mesothelioma and later died, after plaintiffs alleged her illness was caused by asbestos contamination in Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder.

Case: Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV05513

The Plaintiff: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Mae Moore was described as a devoted wife, a mother of three, and an avid user of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. Following her death, her family filed wrongful death claims alleging that the talc-based product Moore utilized harbored asbestos contamination, and this exposure led to the development of mesothelioma. Moore received a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 2020 and succumbed to the disease approximately a year later, at the age of 88.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Johnson & Johnson and other entities named in the lawsuit are the defendants.

Johnson & Johnson is a global company that has sold consumer products, including talc-based baby powder. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants were responsible for placing a talc product into the market that was contaminated with asbestos and for failing to provide adequate warnings. Johnson & Johnson has denied that its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer and has stated it plans to appeal the jury’s verdict.

A Brief History of the Moore v. Johnson & Johnson Case

• Filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles (Case No. 21STCV05513)

• Date of Filing: Feb. 9, 2021

• Claims: Alleged asbestos exposure from talc-based products leading to wrongful death

• Proceeded through litigation to jury trial before Judge Ruth Ann Kwan

• After deliberating for two days, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the family totaling close to $1 billion.

• The jury unanimously found that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice or oppression.

• Compensatory and punitive damages were awarded.

• In response to the findings, Johnson & Johnson stated an intent to appeal.

The Main Question in the Case

Did Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder expose Mae Moore to asbestos in a way that caused her to develop mesothelioma and ultimately led to her death? And if so, did Johnson & Johnson’s conduct justify punitive damages based on findings like malice or oppression?

The Allegations: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

The third amended complaint, as described in the reporting you provided, included a broad set of theories commonly seen in wrongful death product liability litigation. The allegations included:

1. Asbestos-contaminated talc exposure

The plaintiffs alleged that Moore regularly used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and that the talc in it was contaminated with asbestos.

2. Wrongful death and survivorship claims

The claims sought recovery for Moore’s death and for harms suffered before her death, based on the allegation that product exposure caused a fatal disease.

3. Product liability and failure-to-warn theories

The suit asserted theories of negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and failure to warn, based on the allegation that the product was not safe as sold or that consumers were not adequately warned of the risk.

4. Fraud and concealment-related allegations

The claims also included allegations such as fraud, concealment, and conspiracy-related theories, reflecting the plaintiffs’ position that the conduct went beyond an ordinary product defect case.

As with any contested litigation, defendants can dispute both causation and fault. In this matter, Johnson & Johnson has denied that its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer.

FAQ: Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Q: What is a wrongful death claim?

A: A wrongful death claim is brought by certain surviving family members or representatives seeking damages after a person dies due to another party’s wrongful act or neglect.

Q: What is mesothelioma, and why is it relevant in asbestos cases?

A: Mesothelioma is a cancer commonly associated with asbestos exposure. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged Moore’s mesothelioma resulted from asbestos-contaminated talc exposure.

Q: What is the difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages?

A: Compensatory damages are intended to compensate for losses and harm (economic and non-economic). Punitive damages are intended to punish and deter conduct found to be especially harmful, such as conduct involving malice, oppression, or fraud.

Q: Does a jury verdict mean the case is over?

A: Not always. Defendants may file post-trial motions and appeals. Appellate courts can affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment depending on the legal issues and trial record.

Q: Why do punitive damages sometimes make verdicts dramatically larger?

A: Punitive damages can be many times larger than compensatory damages because they are designed to deter and punish, not simply reimburse losses.

If you lost a loved one and believe corporate misconduct, a dangerous product, or a failure to warn contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.

Daphne Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

The landmark $100 million jury verdict in Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium wrongful death lawsuit emphasizes that the court takes corporate responsibility in property management and security seriously. The plaintiffs in the case showed that multiple responsible entities failed to protect residents from a foreseeable tragedy.

Case: Daphne Campbell v. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

Court: Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Florida

Case No.: 2022-001193-CA-01

The Plaintiff: Estate of Jason Campbell (Led by Daphne Campbell)

After the 2021 fatal shooting of her son, Jason Campbell, Daphne Campbell filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the Monte Carlo Condominium Association, its management company, AKAM On-Site Inc., and the EMS Protective Group security firm failed to maintain adequate security and allowed a known threat to enter the property. The plaintiffs claimed that the act of violence that took Campbell's life could have been prevented so when they filed the wrongful death lawsuit seeking damages; they also sought accountability. The plaintiffs' argument insisted that property management and security protocol negligence directly contributed to Campbell's death.

The Defendants: Monte Carlo Condominium Association, AKAM On-Site Inc., and EMS Protective Group

Three key "groups" or entities were listed as defendants in the case based on the plaintiffs' belief that between them they held the responsibility for property safety and management:

1. Monte Carlo Condominium Association, which oversaw the premises;

2. AKAM On-Site Inc., the property management firm responsible for operational safety and building access; and

3. EMS Protective Group, the contracted security provider.

According to the complaint, each entity had prior notice of safety concerns and failed to take meaningful action. According to the plaintiffs, the companies allegedly ignored the reports of unauthorized entry and failed to warn their residents of potential danger, even after the shooter had previously entered the premises armed.

A History of the Case: From Tragedy to Verdict

The tragedy occurred when Lakoria Washington, reportedly the ex-boyfriend of Jason Campbell’s girlfriend, entered the Monte Carlo Condominium complex armed and opened fire. Washington had previously been involved in an incident at the property and was known to security and management.

Despite these warning signs, access control and surveillance systems were reportedly inadequate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ collective failure to implement appropriate security measures created an unsafe environment and directly led to Jason Campbell’s death.

After a full trial, a Miami-Dade County jury awarded $100 million to the Campbell family. The verdict assigned liability as follows:

• 57% to AKAM On-Site Inc. (property manager)

• 18% to the Monte Carlo Condominium Association

• 18% to EMS Protective Group (security firm)

• 7% to the tenant who allowed the shooter access

The jury found that the defendants’ negligence made the shooting foreseeable and that they breached their duty to provide adequate protection for residents and guests. The award will be distributed among Jason Campbell’s surviving parents and children.

Main Question: Was the Shooting a Foreseeable Event?

At the heart of the case was a critical legal question: can a property owner or manager be held liable when a third-party criminal act leads to death on the premises?

The jury determined that, in this case, the answer was yes. Based on the evidence in the case, the shooter entered the property without authorization on a prior occasion, site management knew (or should have known) of ongoing threats, and no meaningful action was taken to address those risks by any of the defendants. The verdict reaffirmed that foreseeability and negligence in maintaining safe premises can lead to liability even when the harm originates from a criminal act by a third party.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Residents?

Although this case unfolded in Florida, its implications reach much further. California's property owners and management companies are held to a legal duty to offer reasonable security for their tenants, employees, and guests. "Offering reasonable security" includes:

• Addressing known threats

• Securing access points

• Taking steps to prevent foreseeable violence

California courts have consistently held that failing to provide adequate security (especially if there are prior incidents) can lead to premises liability and wrongful death liability. The Campbell case serves as a powerful reminder to California landlords, HOAs, and employers alike that safety should never be an afterthought.

FAQ: Premises Liability and Wrongful Death Cases

Q: What legal claim did the Campbell family bring?

A: The family filed a wrongful death and premises liability lawsuit, alleging that the property owner, manager, and security provider failed to maintain a safe environment and ignored prior warnings about the shooter.

Q: How did the jury assign fault among the defendants?

A: The property manager, AKAM On-Site Inc., was found primarily responsible, with 57% of the fault. The condominium association and security company were each assigned 18%, while 7% of fault was attributed to the specific tenant who granted access to the shooter.

Q: Can a California owner be held liable for a third-party crime on their property?

A: Yes. In California, a property owner or property manager can be held liable if a criminal act committed on their property is foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable preventive measures. Some examples include failing to maintain locks or gate latches, ignoring security complaints, or failing to hire appropriate security.

If you’ve lost a loved one due to negligent security or unsafe property conditions, the experienced wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office today to discuss your case and learn more about your rights under California law.

The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of David Loree against TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. became one of the most striking examples of how a jury can respond when a company’s safety failures lead to devastating consequences.

Case: The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

Court: District Court of Harris County, Texas

Case No.: 021-68047, followed by Appeal No. 14-25-00776-CV

The Plaintiff, Estate of David Loree, Represented by Loree's Widow:

The plaintiff is represented by David Loree’s widow, Milena Loree, along with their children Zackary, Cody, and Mary. The family brought the wrongful death lawsuit individually and on behalf of the estate of the late David Loree after Loree lost his life in a catastrophic incident involving heavy construction equipment operated by TNT Crane & Rigging. The family alleged that TNT’s systemic disregard for safety protocols directly caused his death.

The case centered on claims of gross negligence—asserting that TNT Crane & Rigging failed to maintain a safe work environment, properly inspect and operate its cranes, and adequately train personnel to prevent foreseeable accidents.

The Defendant: TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. is a nationwide crane and heavy lifting services operation based out of Texas. According to the original court documents, TNT's initial response to the plaintiff's claims was to deny liability for the incident, indicating that the company's actions exhibited reasonable care and compliance with safety standards. During the early stages of litigation, the defendant argued that there were other factors (including the decedent's actions) that may have contributed. In response, the plaintiffs' counsel provided the court with extensive evidence of repeated safety lapses, warnings the company disregarded, and corporate practices that clearly prioritized productivity rather than safety.

From Trial to Settlement: A History of the Wrongful Death Case

After almost four weeks of trial, the jury found the company liable in the wrongful death of David Loree. The jury found the company's negligence egregious and warranting damages (both compensatory and punitive). The jury awarded the Loree Estate (plaintiff) with $640 million, including $480 million in punitive damages, which is a staggering figure meant to punish and deter similar conduct.

The jury’s finding of gross negligence was particularly significant. The jury's finding required the higher “clear and convincing” standard of proof that demonstrated that the defendant's actions reflected a conscious disregard for the safety of workers. Equally important, jurors rejected the defense’s attempt to assign blame to Mr. Loree.

In September 2025, both parties filed a joint motion to abate the appeal after reaching a settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and later, on October 30, 2025, issued an order vacating the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case for entry of judgment consistent with the settlement. The appellate order did not alter the jury’s findings on negligence—it simply reflected the parties’ agreement to finalize the matter privately.

The Main Question Being Considered: Corporate Negligence and Accountability

At its core, The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. asked whether a major industrial employer could be held fully accountable for systemic safety failures that result in loss of life. The jury’s verdict answered that question decisively—yes, when gross negligence is proven, corporations can and should be held responsible.

While the settlement ultimately resolved the case, the message resonated beyond the courtroom: strong corporate safety programs are not optional. They are essential to protecting workers’ lives.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

Although the case originated in Texas, its lessons are universal. Workers in California (especially those in high-risk industries such as construction, transportation, and manufacturing) face similar dangers when employers cut corners on safety.

California law, through agencies such as Cal/OSHA and the Labor Code, provides powerful protections for employees and their families. However, corporate negligence still leads to preventable deaths and injuries each year. This case highlights how vigilant legal action can expose systemic failures, drive industry reform, and bring a measure of justice to grieving families.

FAQ: The Estate of David Loree v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.

Q: What laws or legal principles were central to the Loree case?

A: The Loree v. TNT lawsuit centered on wrongful death and gross negligence claims. The jury applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard required to award punitive damages; mirroring the heightened standards for proving egregious misconduct in California's civil lawsuits.

Q: What Are Punitive Damages?

A: Punitive awards are intended to punish particularly reckless or malicious conduct.

Q: Is it significant when punitive damages are awarded in a wrongful death case?

A: When a jury awards punitive damages in a wrongful death case, it indicates that they felt the details of the case warranted a more excessive deterrent; in addition to ordinary compensation.

If you’ve lost a loved one due to corporate negligence or unsafe workplace conditions, the compassionate wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help you seek justice at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Contact our office to discuss your situation, and learn how to file a wrongful death lawsuit today.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit filed After a Woman is Killed on Santa Monica Beach

After their daughter was killed by an allegedly reckless driver on a Santa Monica beach, Sherese Allen's parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

Case: Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen v. The City of Santa Monica, Yuyang Sun, Liang Tang, Jie Ding

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25SMCV03861

The Plaintiffs: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The plaintiffs, Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen, are the parents of the late Sherese Allen, who lost her life in a fatal beach accident on October 17, 2024. According to the complaint, Sherese was resting on the sand at Santa Monica Beach when a driver entered the beach area and began recklessly operating a vehicle in circular motions at high speed. The vehicle struck Allen, trapping her underneath and causing fatal injuries. Her parents allege that the City of Santa Monica’s negligence and failure to maintain safe conditions were a direct cause of their daughter’s death.

The Defendants: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The lawsuit names the City of Santa Monica and individuals Yuyang Sun, Liang Tang, and Jie Ding as defendants. The complaint asserts that the driver and associated parties acted negligently, causing Allen’s death, and that the City created and maintained a dangerous condition by failing to prevent vehicles from accessing the beach. According to the lawsuit, the City had control over the beach area and was aware of prior incidents where vehicles had entered and caused injuries or fatalities. Despite this knowledge, the City allegedly failed to install barriers, signage, or enforcement measures to prevent similar tragedies from occurring.

A History of the Case: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The plaintiffs first filed a government claim in March 2025, which is the required preliminary step before suing a public entity in California. After the claim process was concluded, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint seeks damages for wrongful death, negligence, and the creation of dangerous conditions on public property. The plaintiffs seek compensation for loss of companionship, mental anguish, and the emotional devastation of losing their daughter, as well as punitive damages to hold the responsible parties accountable.

The Main Question Being Considered: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

The central question before the court is whether the City of Santa Monica bears legal responsibility for failing to safeguard the public by allowing vehicles to access the beach area. The court will examine whether the City’s alleged inaction (despite prior similar incidents) constitutes the creation of a dangerous condition under California Government Code § 835, and whether that negligence directly contributed to Allen’s death.

FAQ: Tate and Allen v. The City of Santa Monica

Q: What happened to Sherese Allen?

A: On October 17, 2024, Sherese Allen was resting on Santa Monica Beach when a vehicle drove onto the sand, and struck her,. The incident allegedly resulted in her death.

Q: Who filed this wrongful death lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit was filed by the parents of the woman who was hit byt he vehicle, Eugenia Tate and Antron Allen.

Q: What are the allegations against the Defendant?

A: The plaintiffs allege that the City failed to prevent vehicles from entering the beach despite knowing it was a recurring danger. By doing so, the plaintiffs argue they created a hazardous condition on public property.

Q: What damages are being sought?

A: The lawsuit seeks compensation for wrongful death, mental anguish, and loss of companionship. The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages.

If you have questions about wrongful death claims, negligence, or public entity liability in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Response to Bar Employee's Death

In 2025, the widow of a Texas bar employee filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband was killed outside his workplace. The lawsuit alleges that Oak Texas Bar and Grill, LLC, and one of its patrons, John Anthony Saenz, are responsible for the preventable death of employee Juan Nava Hernandez, who was fatally struck in the bar’s parking lot by an intoxicated driver who had just been over-served alcohol inside the establishment.

Case: Cynthia Rodriguez, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Juan Nava Hernandez, Deceased v. John Anthony Saenz and Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Court: Hidalgo County District Court (Texas)

Case No.: C-3997-25-1

The Plaintiff in the Case is Cynthia Rodriguez

Cynthia Rodriguez, the surviving spouse of Juan Nava Hernandez, filed the wrongful death lawsuit individually and on behalf of her late husband’s estate. According to the complaint, on August 1, 2025, Hernandez was performing his job duties—taking out the trash behind the bar—when he was struck and killed by John Anthony Saenz, a customer who had just been served alcohol at Oak Texas Bar and Grill despite being visibly intoxicated. The lawsuit alleges that the bar’s decision to continue serving Saenz alcohol in violation of Texas law directly led to Hernandez’s death. Rodriguez seeks justice for her late husband and compensation for the emotional and financial devastation his loss caused.

The Defendant: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Oak Texas Bar and Grill, LLC, along with patron John Anthony Saenz, is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The complaint accuses the bar of negligence and gross negligence for overserving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later caused the death of one of its own employees. According to case documentation there is incriminating video evidence that shows Saenz driving recklessly through the parking, striking Hernandez, and fatally pinning him against a cinderblock wall. The plaintiffs in the case argue tht the bar failed to protect its employee from foreseeable harm, and that their failure resulted in a fatal tragedy.

A History of the Case: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

The wrongful death complaint was filed in August 2025 in the Hidalgo County District Court. The case seeks monetary relief in excess of $1 million for wrongful death, negligence, gross negligence, and survival claims. Rodriguez seeks damages for loss of financial support, loss of companionship, mental anguish, funeral and burial expenses, and exemplary damages intended to punish and deter similar misconduct. The case remains pending.

The Main Question Being Considered: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

The central question before the court is whether Oak Texas Bar and Grill acted negligently and unlawfully by serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated customer who later caused the death of an employee.

FAQ: Rodriguez v. Oak Texas Bar & Grill, LLC

Q: What happened in the Oak Texas Bar & Grill wrongful death case?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employee Juan Nava Hernandez was fatally struck by a drunk patron who had just been over-served alcohol at the bar, despite being visibly intoxicated.

Q: Who filed the lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit was filed by Cynthia Rodriguez, the surviving spouse of Hernandez, on behalf of herself and her late husband’s estate.

Q: What are the allegations against the bar?

A: The complaint alleges negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Texas liquor laws for serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual who later caused a fatal accident.

Q: What damages are being sought?

A: Rodriguez seeks damages exceeding $1 million for loss of financial

If you need help filing a wrongful death lawsuit, please reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California wrongful death attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.