$48.8M Verdict in Zero-Offer Case Over Garbage Truck Collision

Kamran Hakimi, a 60-year-old father of five, was walking through a marked pedestrian crosswalk in Van Nuys, California, when he was struck by a turning garbage truck owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles. The 2024 incident left Hakimi in a permanent vegetative state due to catastrophic traumatic brain injuries. Although the City of Los Angeles admitted liability for the accident prior to trial, it made no effort to settle the matter and offered nothing in pretrial negotiations.

Despite multiple opportunities to resolve the case outside the courtroom—including a mediator's proposal—the defense refused any payout. The case moved forward without a high-low agreement, a rare occurrence in a catastrophic injury lawsuit.

The Trial

The trial proceeded solely on the issue of damages before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Valerie Salkin. Given the City’s concession on liability, much of the proceedings focused on medical testimony and the long-term impact of Hakimi’s condition.

The plaintiff's legal team presented compelling medical evidence, including testimony from world-renowned neurologist Dr. Bennet Omalu. Dr. Omalu, widely credited for identifying chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), testified to the extent of Hakimi’s neurological injuries and his limited but present brain function. His insights supported the plaintiff's contention that Hakimi was not braindead and that extensive care could improve his quality of life.

In contrast, defense experts argued that Hakimi’s level of consciousness was minimal and compared his awareness to an anesthetized patient undergoing surgery, presenting the idea that he was incapable of experiencing pain or meaningful recovery. The City’s legal team emphasized this point in urging jurors to award a lower amount, far less than the $65–$85 million sought by the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the jury returned a substantial $48.8 million verdict after six days of trial. The award reflects not only the severity of Hakimi’s injuries but also the jury’s rejection of the City’s attempt to minimize damages by characterizing Hakimi’s condition as equivalent to unconscious sedation.

The Expert Witnesses Involved

Expert medical testimony played a central role in the trial. Dr. Omalu’s assessment of Hakimi’s condition was critical to establishing the potential for rehabilitation and the continued need for complex care. His reputation for identifying and diagnosing brain trauma added credibility and weight to the plaintiff’s argument that Hakimi’s condition warranted a high damages award.

The defense countered with medical experts who painted a more static picture of Hakimi’s prognosis. They relied on analogies that minimized the significance of Hakimi’s condition, comparing it to temporary unconsciousness and emphasizing the low probability of meaningful recovery.

Jurors were tasked with weighing these sharply divergent views and ultimately sided with the plaintiff’s narrative that Hakimi, though severely disabled, deserved resources necessary for a dignified existence and potential future advancements in neurological treatment.

The Law Firms Involved

Hakimi was represented by Rahul Ravipudi and Brian Panish of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, a prominent plaintiff-side trial firm known for high-value verdicts in catastrophic injury cases. The City of Los Angeles was defended by its in-house counsel from the City Attorney’s Office and outside counsel from Hurrell Cantrall LLP, a firm with experience in municipal defense.

What’s Next?

While the verdict closes the damages phase of litigation, broader political and policy ramifications may follow. The plaintiff’s team attributed the lack of settlement efforts to the Los Angeles City Attorney’s strict stance on tort reform and policy of non-payment in civil injury cases, even when liability is undisputed.

No comment was issued by the City Attorney’s Office or its outside counsel following the verdict.

The case—Hakimi v. City of Los Angeles, No. 24VECV05119—demonstrates how refusal to settle a clear-liability case can result in substantial financial exposure for public entities. The $48.8 million award is expected to support Hakimi’s long-term medical care and could serve as a cautionary precedent for municipal risk management going forward.