$3.5M Settlement in Santa Monica Bus Injury Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
The lawsuit arose from a December 30, 2022, incident involving a passenger injury aboard a City of Santa Monica Big Blue Bus. Plaintiff Izumi Streller boarded the bus near San Vicente Boulevard and Gorham Avenue around 1:30 p.m. As she entered, the driver, Rochelle McCovery, an employee of the City of Santa Monica, accelerated suddenly before Streller had a chance to secure herself. The abrupt movement caused her to lose balance and fall hard to the floor, striking her head.
The event, later described in the complaint as the “subject incident,” led to a civil lawsuit filed on July 13, 2023. Streller accused the driver and the city of negligence and sought damages for the injuries she suffered as a paying passenger on a public transit vehicle.
Cause
Streller’s attorneys argued that both the City of Santa Monica and McCovery failed to meet the heightened duty of care expected from a common carrier. Under California law, operators of public transport systems owe passengers the “highest degree of care and vigilance.” The complaint alleged that the driver breached this duty when she accelerated before Streller was safely seated or braced.
The Plaintiff emphasized that such negligence was preventable. Proper adherence to safety procedures and basic caution waiting until all passengers were secured would have avoided the fall. The City, as McCovery’s employer, bore legal responsibility under Government Code § 815.2 for the negligent acts of its employee performed within the scope of employment.
Injury
The fall caused head trauma, physical pain, and lasting discomfort, according to the complaint. Streller claimed she struck her head with significant force when she lost balance, leaving her with both visible and internal injuries.
She later experienced symptoms consistent with a concussion and continued physical pain that interfered with her daily activities. Her attorneys argued that the incident not only caused immediate harm but also led to ongoing medical expenses, emotional distress, and a diminished quality of life.
Damages Sought
Streller sought both economic and non-economic damages. Her attorneys requested compensation for medical bills, rehabilitation, and future healthcare costs arising from the injury. They also asked for damages related to pain and suffering, mental anguish, and the emotional distress resulting from the event.
The complaint did not specify an amount but noted that the requested sum would exceed the jurisdictional minimum. The Plaintiff’s team aimed to prove that the accident directly caused significant losses and lasting harm.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case evolved quickly after filing. Streller’s attorneys, from Panish Shea Boyle Ravipudi LLP, presented the matter as a straightforward case of driver negligence, supported by evidence of improper acceleration and failure to ensure passenger safety. They argued that the city’s internal safety protocols and driver training standards were not properly followed, making the incident foreseeable and preventable.
The City of Santa Monica, represented by Deputy City Attorneys P. Molly Ford and Robert Baggs, issued a sweeping general denial in its response filed on August 14, 2023. The defense argued that the city and its employee exercised due care and that Streller’s injuries, if any, resulted from her own actions, not from negligence.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Izumi Streller
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Brian J. Panish, Esq. | Andrew Owen, Esq.
Defendants: City of Santa Monica and Rochelle McCovery
· Counsel for Defendant: P. Molly Ford, Esq., | Robert Baggs, Esq.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiff’s case rested on a single cause of action negligence under California Government Code § 815.2.
Attorneys argued that the Big Blue Bus system, as a public carrier, owed its riders the highest standard of safety. They maintained that the driver breached this duty when she accelerated abruptly, ignoring passenger safety. The complaint pointed out that common carrier operators must exercise extreme caution, especially when passengers are boarding or standing.
The attorneys emphasized that Streller was a fare-paying passenger entitled to that protection. The City, as a public employer, was legally accountable for the driver’s actions performed within her scope of work.
Defense
The City denied every claim of wrongdoing. In its Answer, the defense asserted multiple affirmative defenses, including:
Failure to Exercise Ordinary Care: The City argued that Streller did not act prudently and contributed to her own fall.
Comparative Negligence: The defense claimed that if an injury occurred, the Plaintiff’s own negligence played a substantial role.
Third-Party Fault: The City suggested that unidentified third parties might have caused or contributed to the accident.
Government Immunity: The defense cited several California Government Code sections (815.2, 818, 830.6, among others) to assert that public entities cannot be held liable unless a statute expressly allows it.
No Breach of Duty: The City claimed that the bus driver acted within reasonable bounds and in compliance with the California Vehicle Code.
The defense further contended that the incident was either an unavoidable accident or the result of an emergency beyond the driver’s control.
Settlement
As the case moved toward trial, both parties engaged in settlement talks to avoid the uncertainties and costs of litigation. On August 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney Andrew Owen filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, confirming that all claims between Izumi Streller and the City of Santa Monica were resolved.
The settlement, valued at $3,500,000, represented compensation for Streller’s physical injuries, emotional suffering, and related losses. The resolution avoided a public trial and a potential appeal, bringing closure to a case that highlighted passenger safety obligations in public transportation systems.
The outcome provided financial recovery for Streller while allowing the City of Santa Monica to settle the matter without admitting liability. The agreement underscored the risks of negligence claims against public transportation agencies and reinforced the duty of care owed to passengers.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com