CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Sacramento Self-Driving Car Accident Lawyer

FREE EVALUATION (916) 777-7777

Liability for a Waymo or Tesla self-driving accident in California depends on the vehicle and how it was operating. In a fully driverless Waymo crash, the autonomous vehicle company, fleet operator, or component manufacturer may be responsible. In a Tesla Autopilot or Full Self-Driving crash, both the human driver and Tesla may be investigated, depending on the facts.

Key Takeaways

  • A Waymo crash may involve a driverless vehicle with no human driver behind the wheel.
  • A Tesla Autopilot or Full Self-Driving crash usually involves a human driver who was still required to supervise the vehicle.
  • Autonomous vehicle cases often depend on digital evidence, including camera footage, telemetry, sensor data, app records, and software logs.
  • California DMV and NHTSA reporting systems may contain useful crash information, but they do not replace a civil investigation.
  • If you were injured in a self-driving or driver-assistance crash, evidence preservation should begin quickly.

Driverless cars are no longer science fiction. They are already operating on California roads, and Sacramento is part of the next wave. The California DMV lists Sacramento County cities, including Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento, among Waymo’s approved areas of operation for driverless testing and deployment.

Arnold Law Firm is a Sacramento personal injury law firm representing injured Californians. If you were hurt in a crash involving a Waymo, Tesla Autopilot, Tesla Full Self-Driving, or another autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, you should understand your rights before speaking with an insurance company, fleet operator, or corporate representative.

Sacramento autonomous vehicle accident lawyer

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

SETTLEMENT

$60,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit.

Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

A whistleblower case exposing fraudulent practices in the state of California resulted…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$8,000,000

Truck Accident

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young…
Learn More

JUDGEMENT

$3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck…
Learn More

How Are Autonomous Vehicle Accident Cases Different From Regular Car Accidents?

Most car accident cases focus on human conduct. Did the driver speed? Run a red light? Follow too closely? Fail to yield? Look down at a phone?

Autonomous vehicle cases can involve those questions, but they may also involve technical issues ordinary injury cases do not:

  • Did the vehicle detect the pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcycle, stopped car, traffic signal, construction zone, emergency vehicle, or school zone?
  • Did the automated system brake, accelerate, stop, swerve, merge, or change lanes at the wrong time?
  • Did the vehicle disengage seconds before impact?
  • Did a human driver ignore takeover warnings?
  • Did the company know about similar incidents before the crash?
  • Was the vehicle operating within its approved area and conditions?
  • Were cameras, maps, sensors, lidar, radar, or software systems obstructed, outdated, defective, or poorly calibrated?
  • Was the software properly designed, tested, monitored, updated, or recalled?

These questions matter because the most important evidence may be controlled by the company behind the vehicle. An injured person may have photos, medical records, witness names, and a police report. The company may have video, telemetry, sensor data, internal logs, trip data, fleet records, and software information. That is why autonomous vehicle injury claims should be investigated quickly.

What Makes a Waymo Crash Different?

Waymo cases are different from Tesla cases because Waymo vehicles may operate without a human driver in the vehicle. NHTSA distinguishes automated driving systems (ADS) from Level 2 advanced driver-assistance systems. In its mature form, an ADS aims to perform the driving task within a defined operating domain without driver involvement, while Level 2 ADAS still requires human supervision.

In a Waymo crash, there may be no human driver to blame. That does not mean no one is responsible. It means the investigation may focus on the companies and systems behind the vehicle. Potentially responsible parties may include:

  • The autonomous vehicle company.
  • The fleet operator.
  • The vehicle owner.
  • A remote assistance or fleet operations provider.
  • A software, mapping, sensor, hardware, braking, steering, or component manufacturer.
  • Another negligent driver who contributed to the collision.
  • A public entity or contractor, in limited cases involving dangerous road conditions, construction zones, or traffic-control failures.

California has also recently strengthened oversight of autonomous vehicles. On April 28, 2026, the California DMV announced new regulations covering light-duty and heavy-duty autonomous vehicles. The rules expand safety and oversight requirements, allow law enforcement agencies to cite AV companies for moving violations committed by their vehicles, require AV companies to maintain two-way communication links with first responders that respond within 30 seconds, and authorize local emergency officials to issue electronic geofencing directives requiring AV manufacturers to clear their fleets from emergency zones within two minutes.

Who Is Liable in a Tesla Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Crash?

Tesla states that Full Self-Driving (Supervised) requires active driver supervision and does not make the vehicle autonomous. Tesla’s owner manual also warns that drivers must remain attentive, be ready to take over at all times, and pay attention to pedestrians and cyclists. That means a Tesla crash usually raises two separate questions.

1. What did the human driver do?

The driver may be investigated for failing to supervise the vehicle, ignoring warnings, using a phone, relying too heavily on the system, speeding, driving while tired, or failing to take over when a reasonable driver would have intervened. Even if the Tesla system was engaged, the driver may still be responsible for the crash.

2. What did the Tesla system do?

The system may also need to be investigated. Did it fail to identify a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcycle, emergency vehicle, stopped car, lane marking, traffic light, or construction zone? Did it accelerate, brake, merge, or turn unsafely? Did it disengage immediately before impact? Did the vehicle provide adequate warnings? Depending on the facts, a Tesla crash may involve ordinary negligence, negligent entrustment, product liability, failure to warn, defective design, defective software, negligent recall, or other legal theories.

What Types of Injuries Happen in Self-Driving Car Accidents?

Autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle crashes can injure people in the same ways as other serious collisions. California autonomous vehicle crashes may involve:

  • Pedestrians hit in crosswalks, parking lots, downtown streets, or school zones.
  • Bicyclists struck during turns, lane changes, or passing maneuvers.
  • Motorcyclists injured when a vehicle fails to detect them.
  • Passengers hurt while riding in a Waymo, Tesla, rideshare, or other vehicle.
  • Drivers rear-ended after sudden stops or unsafe braking.
  • People injured in freeway merges, intersections, construction zones, or multi-car crashes.
  • Emergency responders affected by vehicles that fail to stop, move, or clear emergency scenes.
  • Children, seniors, and people with disabilities injured as vulnerable road users.

The injuries may include traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, fractures, torn ligaments, neck and back injuries, internal injuries, burns, scarring, chronic pain, emotional trauma, and wrongful death. Even a crash that seems minor at first can become serious when symptoms worsen over time.

What Compensation Can Injured People Recover?

A person injured in a Waymo, Tesla, or other autonomous vehicle crash may be entitled to compensation for:

  • Past and future medical expenses, including emergency care, surgery, therapy, and rehabilitation.
  • Lost wages and reduced earning capacity.
  • Pain and suffering.
  • Emotional distress.
  • Disability or loss of mobility.
  • Scarring or disfigurement.
  • Loss of enjoyment of life.
  • Property damage and out-of-pocket expenses.
  • Wrongful death damages for surviving family members in fatal cases.

The value of the case depends on the severity of the injuries, medical treatment, long-term prognosis, available insurance, available defendants, liability evidence, and the impact on the injured person’s life.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

What Evidence Matters After a Waymo or Tesla Accident?

Evidence can disappear quickly after a self-driving car crash. Vehicles are repaired. Software is updated. Video may be overwritten. Companies may control data that an injured person cannot access without legal action. Important evidence may include:

  • Police reports and traffic collision reports.
  • California DMV autonomous vehicle collision reports.
  • NHTSA crash reports.
  • Vehicle camera footage.
  • Tesla event data and onboard logs.
  • Waymo sensor, lidar, radar, mapping, and telemetry data.
  • Remote assistance or fleet operations records.
  • Trip receipts, app records, and ride confirmations.
  • 911 calls, body camera footage, and emergency response records.
  • Photos and videos from nearby businesses, homes, dashcams, and traffic cameras.
  • Medical records and bills.
  • Witness statements.
  • Cell phone or distraction evidence.
  • Maintenance, inspection, repair, software update, and recall records.

The California DMV maintains autonomous vehicle collision reports and requires reporting using its OL 316 form. NHTSA also requires crash reporting for automated driving systems and Level 2 driver-assistance systems. Government reports can be useful, but they usually do not assign fault or show what the vehicle detected, what the software decided, or what the company knew before the crash. A civil investigation is often necessary.

Who Can Be Liable for an Autonomous Vehicle Injury?

Liability depends on the facts. Responsible parties may include one or more of the following.

The human driver. In a Tesla case, the driver may be liable if they failed to supervise the vehicle, drove distracted, ignored warnings, or failed to take over.

The autonomous vehicle company or fleet operator. In a driverless vehicle case, the operator may be liable if the vehicle made an unsafe maneuver, stopped dangerously, failed to recognize a hazard, or operated in conditions it could not safely handle.

The vehicle manufacturer. A manufacturer may be responsible if a design defect, manufacturing defect, software defect, inadequate warning, or failure to recall contributed to the crash.

A component or software supplier. Cameras, sensors, lidar, radar, mapping systems, braking systems, steering systems, and software components may all matter.

Another driver. Many autonomous vehicle collisions still involve ordinary negligent drivers.

A public entity or contractor. Dangerous road design, broken signals, missing signs, unsafe construction zones, or negligent road work may contribute to some crashes. Claims involving public entities have special rules and shorter deadlines.

California follows pure comparative negligence. Under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., an injured person’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault rather than automatically barred.

What Should You Do After a Waymo or Tesla Crash?

  • Call 911 and report the crash.
  • Get medical care immediately.
  • Photograph the vehicles, license plates, vehicle numbers, road markings, traffic lights, debris, injuries, and visible cameras.
  • Identify whether the vehicle was a Waymo, Tesla, rideshare vehicle, or other autonomous vehicle.
  • Get witness names and contact information.
  • Save app screenshots, trip receipts, text messages, and ride confirmations.
  • Do not guess about fault.
  • Do not give a recorded statement without legal advice.
  • Do not post about the crash on social media.
  • Contact an attorney quickly so preservation letters can be sent before key data disappears.

In California, the general deadline for personal injury cases is two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. Claims involving public entities can have much shorter deadlines, including six months under Government Code section 911.2.

WE FIGHT FOR YOUR MAXIMUM INJURY COMPENSATION

Free Case Evaluation
CALL 916-777-7777

Why Choose Arnold Law Firm?

Autonomous vehicle injury cases require fast evidence preservation, careful investigation, and the ability to explain complicated facts clearly. These cases can involve personal injury law, product liability, company-controlled data, insurance disputes, and rapidly changing transportation technology.

Arnold Law Firm is based in Sacramento and represents injured Californians. The firm evaluates personal injury claims involving negligent drivers, dangerous vehicles, unsafe conduct, and corporate defendants. In a Waymo, Tesla, or self-driving vehicle case, the goal is to identify what happened, preserve the evidence, determine who may be responsible, and pursue full compensation for the injured person.

If you were injured in a crash involving a Waymo, Tesla Autopilot, Tesla Full Self-Driving, or another autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, do not assume the company’s version of events is complete. The vehicle may have data. The company may have reports. The defense may already be investigating.

You deserve someone investigating for you.

Injured in a Waymo or Tesla Accident in California? Call Arnold Law Firm.

If you were injured in Sacramento or anywhere in California in a crash involving an autonomous vehicle, Waymo, Tesla Autopilot, or Tesla Full Self-Driving, contact Arnold Law Firm today. We can evaluate what happened, identify responsible parties, preserve critical evidence, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

Call today for a free consultation.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Frequently Asked Questions About Autonomous Vehicle Accidents in California

How long do I have to file a self-driving car accident lawsuit in California?

California’s general personal injury statute of limitations is two years from the date of injury. Shorter deadlines may apply if a public entity is involved. In many injury claims against public entities, a government claim must be presented within six months.

Is Tesla liable if Autopilot causes a crash?

It depends. Tesla describes Autopilot and Full Self-Driving as supervised driver-assistance systems, not fully autonomous driving. The human driver may be liable for failing to supervise. Tesla may also be investigated if a software issue, design defect, inadequate warning, or known safety issue contributed to the crash.

Can I sue Waymo if a driverless car hit me?

Yes, depending on the facts. When there is no human driver, claims may focus on the autonomous vehicle company, fleet operator, software providers, component manufacturers, and any other party that contributed to the crash.

Does Sacramento allow driverless cars on public roads?

The California DMV lists several Sacramento County cities, including Sacramento, Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Citrus Heights, among Waymo’s approved areas for driverless testing and deployment.

What evidence should I preserve after an autonomous vehicle accident?

Preserve photographs, witness information, medical records, police reports, app receipts, trip data, dashcam footage, surveillance footage, and vehicle identifying information. An attorney can also send preservation letters seeking onboard video, telemetry, sensor data, software logs, and company records.

How much is a Waymo or Tesla accident case worth?

Case value depends on injury severity, medical costs, lost income, long-term prognosis, insurance coverage, liability, and available defendants. California’s comparative negligence rule can also affect the final recovery if multiple people or companies share fault.

LATEST NEWS

Treble Damages in California Trucking Cases

justice4you January 30, 2026

California law provides a specific statutory remedy for victims injured by impaired commercial vehicle drivers when their employers fail to meet federal safety requirements. Understanding when treble damages apply—and how they differ from standard punitive damages—is crucial for truck accident victims seeking maximum compensation. What Are Treble Damages? Treble damages allow injured parties to recover three times their actual damages under specific legal circumstances. In California trucking cases, this remedy is narrowly defined and differs significantly from general punitive damages available in other personal injury cases. California Civil Code § 3333.7: Statutory Treble Damages Requirements for Recovery Under California Civil Code § 3333.7, injured parties may recover treble damages from a commercial motor vehicle driver’s employer when all of the

California Trucking Accidents: Standards of Care

justice4you January 29, 2026

California law establishes different standards of care for trucking operations depending on the type of service provided. While most commercial trucking companies transporting freight are subject to ordinary negligence standards, federal motor carrier safety regulations impose enhanced duties that can significantly affect liability in truck accident cases. Key Takeaways: Commercial carriers of goods generally DO NOT have the duty of “utmost care” Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) DO create heightened standards in specific situations Large truck drivers must exercise greater caution than ordinary motorists Licensed motor carriers have nondelegable safety duties Common Carrier Standard: When Does “Utmost Care” Apply? The Enhanced Duty for Passenger Transportation California Civil Code section 2100 requires carriers of persons for reward to use “the

Punitive Damages in California Personal Injury Cases

justice4you January 28, 2026

What Are Punitive Damages? Punitive damages are extra money a court can order a wrongdoer to pay, on top of the money that compensates an injured person for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The main goal of punitive damages is not to repay the victim, but to punish especially bad behavior and to discourage similar conduct in the future. Think of punitive damages as a financial penalty for conduct that is much worse than ordinary carelessness. In California, punitive damages are not common. They are reserved for cases where the defendant’s conduct is particularly harmful, intentional, or shows a conscious disregard for the safety or rights of others. Most personal injury cases involve simple negligence (for example,

Settlement - $3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of $3.9 million, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay. This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendants $1,000,000 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresentations when applying for that policy. Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent. The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits.

Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011 in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandt’s case. A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts favor. After four years of fighting for what is right, the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

Settlement - $8,000,000

Truck Accident

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young mother of three. She was calling from the hospital where her husband Christopher had been air-lifted for treatment of severe injuries from a tragic motor vehicle accident earlier that day. Angela’s mother, a past client of our firm, had encouraged her to give us a call.

As it turns out, Angela’s prompt contact with us was a very important decision for their family. Immediate representation allowed our team to secure critical evidence right away — appropriate storage and analysis of the vehicle to avoid tampering, timely professional photography of the scene, and interviews of involved parties — which ended up being imperative to the details of Christopher’s case.

A commercial vehicle had failed to stop at a rural stop-sign intersection, colliding with the compact sedan driven by Christopher, an active 33-year-old father. The impact caused extensive damage to his spinal cord in the cervical area. Despite multiple surgeries, rehabilitation programs for physical and psychological therapy, and in-home care, his injuries rendered him a paraplegic, paralyzed from the mid-chest. In an instant, life as he had known it was gone forever.

At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver of the commercial vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with a large corporation. With the employer being directly liable, as such, defense counsel fought hard to minimize Christopher’s damages, claiming that his being unemployed at that time devalued his losses. Our legal team made sure Christopher’s true losses were represented, including his potential income, his options and mobility, his ability to provide for and support his family, and the lifetime of care he now needed. Christopher’s injuries also dramatically affected his spouse’s daily life, resulting in a claim on her behalf.

Furthermore, the extent of Christopher’s injuries were, in part, due to defects involving the dual-restraint system in his own vehicle. Despite the manufacturer’s efforts to deny any responsibility, the Arnold Law Firm established negligence relevant to his case.

The result was a settlement of $8 million — the largest pre-trial settlement for this type of case in the region. Christopher now has the resources to receive the ongoing care he now requires, improve the quality of his life and take care of his young family.

Verdict - $10,200,000

Motorcycle Accident

The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

Settlement - $17,000,000

Data Breach

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

Settlement - $18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Settlement - $60,000,000

Data Breach

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.