Your Family Just Got Hit by a Teen Driver Going Too Fast. Here Is What Happens Next.
If you are reading this, someone you love is either dead, in a hospital bed, or trying to sleep at night replaying the moment a Chevrolet Avalanche left the roadway on International Boulevard near 85th Avenue and walked through a crowd of people standing on the sidewalk. Three men died. Five people went to the hospital. The 17-year-old behind the wheel survived, was charged, and — as a matter of routine in juvenile court — was released back to a parent before trial.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a senior trial team that takes catastrophic-injury and wrongful-death cases in California. We have spent decades inside rooms where the insurance industry prices families like yours. We are not here to sell you a slogan. We are here to walk you through what the next twelve months actually look like, what California law lets you do, who can be held responsible when a 17-year-old wrecks a full-size pickup into a crowd, and what evidence is disappearing right now while you read this sentence.
You have real questions. We will answer every one. The first thing to understand: the criminal case against the juvenile is one fight. Your civil case — the one that pays funeral bills, medical bills, lost income, and the incalculable value of the person who is gone — is a different fight, and it is the one you control.
What Happened on International Boulevard Near 85th Avenue
Late on a Saturday night in mid-May, on a stretch of East Oakland’s International Boulevard — historically East 14th Street, one of the deadliest pedestrian corridors in the city — a Chevrolet Avalanche was moving fast enough that, when the driver lost control, the truck did not stop at the curb. It went into a group of people who had every right to be standing on that sidewalk. Three men were killed. Five people were injured, including the driver. An Alameda County judge recently released the 17-year-old from custody pending the criminal case, finding that the record, as presented, showed “no motive” and “no intent apparent to harm.”
That last point matters legally, and we want to be straight with you about it. The judge’s reasoning speaks to whether the criminal system will treat this as a deliberate act. Your civil case is not built on intent. Your civil case is built on negligence — the choice to operate a vehicle at a speed and in a manner that was unsafe for the conditions, and the choices made by the people who put that teenager behind the wheel of a 5,000-pound truck on a corridor that Oakland itself has identified as a Vision Zero priority. We will come back to why that distinction is the entire ballgame.
International Boulevard is not just any street. It runs through the heart of East Oakland, dense with foot traffic, transit stops, late-night businesses, and families who live within walking distance of everything they need. The Bus Rapid Transit lane configuration along this corridor was meant to make the street safer — and in many ways it has — but it has also created lane shifts and merges that drivers sometimes handle badly, particularly at speed. The stretch near 85th Avenue sits in a high-poverty, high-density area where, according to the data we work with from Oakland’s traffic-safety planning, the rate of pedestrian-involved serious injury and fatality exceeds the Alameda County average. The city knows this. The county knows this. The corridor has been on the city’s high-injury network for years. That documented knowledge matters when we explain to a jury why this defendant should have expected people to be on that sidewalk.
If your loved one was on that sidewalk, or in the crosswalk nearby, or simply standing on the curb talking to a friend — none of those facts reduce what is owed to your family under California law. We will explain why in a moment.
Who We Can Hold Accountable When a Minor Driver Wrecks Into a Crowd
A common — and very dangerous — mistake families make is to read the news, see “teen driver charged,” and conclude that the only defendant is a 17-year-old who has no assets and no insurance. That is the conclusion the insurance industry wants you to reach, because it ends the fight before it starts. It is also wrong.
There are at least three separate legal pathways to full accountability in a case like this, and our job at Attorney911 is to pursue every one of them at the same time.
The 17-year-old driver. He is the obvious defendant. He is directly liable for negligent and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. Under California Vehicle Code Section 22350 — the Basic Speed Law — no person may drive at a speed greater than is reasonable for the conditions, and under California Vehicle Code Section 23103, reckless driving on a highway is a distinct offense. Both of these rules exist specifically to protect the class of persons who got hurt here: pedestrians and bystanders on or near the roadway. When a driver violates them and people die, California treats that as negligence per se — meaning the law presumes negligence for you, and the defense has to fight to get out from under it. That is a real legal advantage, and we use it.
The registered owner of the Chevrolet Avalanche. California Vehicle Code Section 17150 imposes what lawyers call vicarious liability on the owner of a motor vehicle for the negligent acts of a permissive user. If the teen was driving with the owner’s permission — and in almost every case involving a minor living at home, that permission is presumed — then the owner’s insurance is on the hook alongside the driver’s. This is one of the most powerful but least understood rules in California personal-injury law. It exists because California decided long ago that the person who chooses to put a vehicle on the road should bear the cost when that vehicle injures someone, even if the owner was not behind the wheel at the moment of the crash.
Section 17151 of the same code addresses the dollar cap on that owner liability. As a general rule, an owner’s liability under Section 17150 is capped at the minimum financial-responsibility limits — historically expressed as a per-person and per-occurrence figure that, while adjusted over the years, has been a fraction of what a triple-fatality case is worth. The cap exists, but it is not the end of the story. It is the beginning of the next theory.
The parents or guardians of the minor driver. This is where the case gets traction when the obvious defendants cannot pay. California recognizes a claim called negligent entrustment — a separate, independent tort — when a person hands a dangerous instrumentality (like a full-size pickup truck) to someone they know, or should know, is unfit to use it safely. The unfit person can be a minor without a license, a person with a known history of crashes or citations, a person known to drive aggressively, or a person under the influence. If the parents handed the keys to a 17-year-old they knew was unlicensed, or had a reckless-driving history, or had bragged on social media about speeding, then the parents are personally liable for the entire damages award — not capped at the minimum-liability limits — because negligent entrustment is treated as independent negligence, not vicarious liability. We will dig deep into the teen’s driving history, his social media, his school records, and his parents’ knowledge. The dossier we build is the answer to the insurance company’s “he has no money” argument.
There may also be other defendants depending on what the evidence shows. If the Avalanche had a mechanical defect — a stuck throttle, a brake failure, a tire blowout that contributed to loss of control — the manufacturer may be in the case. If a third party contributed to the crash by racing, blocking the roadway, or otherwise creating the conditions for the loss of control, they are a defendant too. We do not guess at this; we let the evidence tell us. But we never stop looking after the first defendant is named.
California Law That Protects You — And Why This State Is on Your Side
Three features of California law make this case meaningfully different from the same crash in many other states. None of them are automatic. All of them have to be claimed, developed, and proved by a trial team willing to do the work. Here is what they are and why each one matters to your family.
California is a pure comparative negligence state. This rule governs what happens when a victim is found to share some percentage of fault. In California, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault — it is not erased. If a jury decides that your loved one was 10% at fault for some reason (and on this record, with the crowd lawfully on the sidewalk, we do not see how that would happen), the recovery is reduced by 10%, not eliminated. This is the most victim-protective comparative-fault rule in the country, and it matters because the first move the insurance company will make is to try to blame your family for being on the sidewalk at night, for wearing dark clothing, for not seeing the truck, for any small thing. Under pure comparative negligence, that blame reduces the dollar number — it does not give the defense a get-out-of-jail card.
California places no general cap on non-economic damages in personal-injury and wrongful-death cases. Non-economic damages are the losses that do not come with an invoice — the loss of your loved one’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, society, and affection. The loss of the way they made you laugh. The loss of their hand on your shoulder. The loss of the Sunday dinners and the phone calls and the way they showed up. In a triple-fatality case involving a young person killed by a speeding vehicle, these damages are not small — they are the largest part of what the case is worth, and California law does not let the defendant impose an arbitrary ceiling on them. This is one of the signature advantages of bringing your case in California, and it is a deliberate choice the State of California has made to put a full value on a human life.
California’s wrongful-death and survival statutes are claimant-protective. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60 governs who may bring a wrongful-death action — the decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, and, if there are no surviving issue, then those entitled to the property of the decedent. CCP Section 377.34 controls how damages are distributed. Section 377.30 governs the separate survival action, which belongs to the decedent’s estate and recovers the damages the decedent sustained between the moment of impact and the moment of death — including the terror of seeing the impact coming. We bring both claims in every case where the facts support them, because they reach different losses and protect different family members.
You also have a statute of limitations to respect. California’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury claims (including survival actions) is two years from the date of injury. California’s statute of limitations for wrongful-death claims is two years from the date of death. There are narrow exceptions for minors, for delayed discovery, and for tolling during criminal proceedings in some circumstances — but waiting until the last minute is how cases die. We will discuss this further in the First 72 Hours section below. The point is: do not let anyone tell you that you have all the time in the world. You do not.
The legal rule, in plain English: Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60, a wrongful-death claim belongs to the people who lost a spouse, a domestic partner, a child, or — where no issue of the decedent survives — to those entitled to the decedent’s property. Damages include both the financial support your loved one would have provided and the intangible value of their love, companionship, and care. This is one of the most powerful civil remedies California law gives to a grieving family, and it is the central weapon in a case like the International Boulevard crash.
What the Three Families Can Recover — and What the Five Injured Survivors Can Recover
We will speak plainly here, because the math is part of how you make decisions.
For the three families who lost a loved one, the civil claim has two parts. The wrongful-death claim — under CCP 377.60 — recovers what the family lost: the financial support the decedent would have provided, the value of household services, the value of gifts and benefits the decedent would have given, and the reasonable funeral and burial expenses. It also recovers the non-economic loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, society, and affection. In California, with no cap on non-economic damages, this number is set by the jury — by twelve people from Alameda County who sit in judgment of what this man’s life was worth to the people who loved him. We prepare that case with the seriousness it deserves.
The survival action — under CCP 377.30 — is the estate’s claim for the damages the decedent himself sustained between the impact and the moment of death. In a high-speed crash, this is often a substantial claim, because the terror, the pain, and the awareness of what was happening, even for a few seconds, is real and compensable.
There may also be punitive damages available. California permits punitive damages where the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud — the legal phrase that includes a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. A 17-year-old driving a 5,000-pound pickup at high speed on a corridor known to be crowded, where the loss of control was foreseeable and the consequences catastrophic, is the kind of conduct that can support a punitive-damages claim. We pursue punitive damages when the evidence supports them, because punishment and deterrence are part of what justice looks like in a case like this.
For the five injured survivors, the claim is a personal-injury action for all the harm caused: past medical expenses, future medical expenses, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and the full range of non-economic damages for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. Where an injury is permanent, the non-economic component is the largest part of the case value, and California juries take that seriously.
What this means in dollars: In our experience and based on the cases we have seen in California, a triple-fatality case with strong negligence-per-se facts can have a theoretical case value in the range of $3,000,000 to over $25,000,000+, depending on the ages and earning profiles of the decedents, the egregiousness of the conduct, and — critically — the available insurance and reachable assets of the defendants. We do not quote specific numbers in advance, because every case is different. But we will tell you honestly what we see in your particular facts after we have done the investigation, and we will not let the insurance company set the ceiling on what your family recovers.
Bypassing the Insurance Cap — How We Pierce the Owner’s Liability Limit
This is the move that makes or breaks the case, and it is the move that separates a serious trial firm from a settlement mill.
California Vehicle Code Section 17151 places a dollar cap on the registered owner’s vicarious liability for a permissive driver’s negligence — generally the minimum financial-responsibility limits at the time the case arose. If you stop there, you are stuck with whatever the teen’s policy happens to be. For a young driver, that may be a state-minimum policy, which is not enough to cover one hospital bill, let alone three funerals and five serious injuries.
That is why the negligent-entrustment theory matters. Negligent entrustment is not vicarious liability. It is independent negligence by the person who handed over the keys. When you prove negligent entrustment, the cap does not apply. The entrustor is liable for the full measure of damages.
How do you prove negligent entrustment against a parent? You investigate, with the same rigor that goes into a serious criminal investigation. We subpoena the teen’s driving history — every citation, every crash, every license suspension. We pull his social media to see whether he posted videos of himself speeding, doing stunts, or making statements about his driving ability. We speak to his friends. We pull his school disciplinary records where relevant and lawful. We look at whether the teen had a learner’s permit or a full license, and whether the parent knew the difference. We look at whether the parent had ever seen him drive dangerously before and said nothing. We look at whether the vehicle had been provided with no conditions attached, no curfew, no supervision — knowing that a 17-year-old was going to be driving a powerful truck on city streets late at night.
That investigation is the difference between a case settled at policy limits and a case that goes after the parents’ home, their savings, their future wages, and any umbrella coverage they carry. It is the difference between the insurance company writing one check and writing several.
We have written about the insurance reality in detail for clients across our practice — including on our page about car accident cases — and the rule holds: the policy you can see is rarely the only policy that exists. Umbrella coverage, household members’ policies, employer coverage where the teen worked, even resident-relative policies under the parent’s homeowner policy can all be sources of recovery. We chase them all.
The Evidence That Is Disappearing Right Now
This is the part of the case most people do not know about until it is too late. Every serious crash case lives or dies by what evidence we can freeze in the first days and weeks. We cannot get it back once it is gone. Here is the list — and what is happening to each item as you read this.
The Chevrolet Avalanche itself. It is sitting in a tow yard or an Oakland Police Department impound lot. Its Event Data Recorder — the “black box” — captured the last few seconds before the crash: vehicle speed, throttle position, brake application, steering angle, engine RPM, and in many late-model vehicles, whether the seatbelt was buckled. That data is the single most important objective witness to what happened. It can be downloaded by an accident reconstructionist with the right equipment. It can also be erased if the vehicle is “serviced,” if the battery is disconnected for long enough, or if the vehicle is sold for salvage. We move to preserve the vehicle immediately, by written preservation letter to the registered owner, the insurer, the police department holding it, and the tow yard. That letter goes out the day you call us.
The driver’s cell phone. Distracted driving — texting, social media, video — is a routine finding in cases like this. The cell phone’s call detail records, text logs, and application usage can be obtained by subpoena, but the data retention windows are short. Some carriers purge usage detail after weeks; app data can be deleted from the device by a reset. We send a preservation request to the carrier and, where appropriate, seek a court order to preserve the device itself.
Surveillance footage. International Boulevard is lined with commercial properties — corner stores, restaurants, laundromats, check-cashing businesses — that operate security cameras, and the city has its own transit cameras along the BRT corridor. Most of these systems overwrite their own footage every 7 to 30 days. If we do not serve a preservation demand on the right businesses within the first two weeks, the footage is gone. This is the evidence you cannot reconstruct. We move fast on this.
Police evidence and toxicology. The Oakland Police Department and the California Highway Patrol (if involved) will have their own reconstruction, measurements, and toxicology on the driver. We obtain the incident report through a Public Records Act request as soon as it is final, and we request independent preservation of the blood draw if any was performed.
Witness statements. Witnesses on the sidewalk, in the surrounding businesses, and in passing vehicles saw what happened. Their memory fades. We identify them early and lock in their statements before the insurance company’s investigators get to them first.
The teen’s driving and social history. We serve litigation holds and subpoenas on the DMV, on the teen’s school, and on social-media platforms. We look for prior incidents, prior complaints, prior conversations that the parents knew about.
This is what the first 72 hours of a real case looks like. Not a phone call. A coordinated preservation effort, run by a team that has done it before.
The Insurance Adjuster Playbook — And Our Counter to Every Move
If you have not yet heard from an insurance adjuster, you will. And when you do, you need to know what they are doing and why. The playbook is the same in every case like this, and it has not changed in the thirty years we have been doing this work. The only thing that has changed is the speed.
Play 1: The friendly early call. Within days of the crash, an adjuster from the teen’s insurance — and possibly from the owner’s insurance — will call you. They will introduce themselves, express sympathy, and ask a few “routine” questions about what happened. The call is being recorded. The questions are designed to lock in your account of events before you have had time to think, before you have seen all the medical records, before you have a lawyer. The counter: do not give a recorded statement. Refer the adjuster to us. There is no law that requires you to speak with them, and every sentence you give them can be used against you.
Play 2: The fast check. Within weeks, often before funeral arrangements are finished, an adjuster may offer a quick settlement — a check that arrives with a release printed on the back. The number is calculated to be enough to take the pressure off your bills right now, and not nearly enough to compensate what has actually happened. The counter: do not sign anything. Do not cash any check. Every release in California has specific legal requirements to be enforceable, and we make sure yours meets none of them before you sign.
Play 3: The comparative-fault speech. Once they have your statement and your medical records, the adjuster (and the defense lawyer they hand the file to) will begin to suggest that your loved one was partially at fault. Dark clothing. Not in a crosswalk. Out after dark. Saw the truck coming and did not move. The adjustments can be subtle. The goal is to attach a percentage of blame to your family that reduces the recovery — sometimes dramatically. Under California law, even a partial-fault finding reduces your recovery by that percentage; it does not, in most cases, eliminate it. But the defense will work very hard to inflate the percentage. The counter: we know the law, we know the corridor, and we know the Vision Zero record. We do not let them shift blame onto a man standing on a sidewalk.
Play 4: The delay. A case that drags on for years is a case the defense can settle for less. Insurance carriers earn interest on the money they hold while you wait. The longer your case takes, the more pressure you feel, the more likely you are to accept a low number out of exhaustion. The counter: we run a real case from day one, on a real timetable, with the preservation, the discovery, and the depositions scheduled and enforced. We do not let the file sit on a desk.
Play 5: The surveillance and the social-media mining. Once you file a claim, the defense may hire investigators to watch you and to comb through your public social media for anything they can use — a photo of you smiling at a birthday party, a post about a vacation, anything to suggest you are “less injured” or “less grief-stricken” than you claim. The counter: live your life, but be aware. Do not post about the case. Do not post about the crash. Do not post about your injuries. Set your accounts to private. We will guide you through exactly what to do and not to do, and we will help you understand what the defense is really looking for.
Each of these plays has been run against families we have represented, sometimes by the same companies, sometimes by the same law firms. We have seen every version of the playbook, and we have a counter for each one. That experience is part of what you are hiring when you call us.
A note on the criminal case: The teen’s release from custody pending trial is a routine part of the juvenile justice process. It does not mean the criminal case is over, and it does not affect your civil case at all. The two cases run on separate tracks, with separate rules of evidence, separate burdens of proof, and separate remedies. Your civil case is your case — not the district attorney’s. And in many cases, the criminal case gives us tools we can use: the police report, the officer’s observations, the teen’s own statements, the toxicology results. We coordinate with the criminal proceedings where it benefits your family, but we never wait for them to finish before we move on the evidence we control.
The First 72 Hours — What To Do Right Now
If you are reading this in the first days after the crash, this is what we want you to do. None of it requires money. All of it requires focus.
Medical care first. If anyone in your family has not been fully evaluated — headaches that started after the crash, neck pain, dizziness, anxiety that keeps you awake, nightmares — get to a doctor. Symptoms of traumatic injury are routinely delayed by hours, days, or weeks. The records of those evaluations are part of the proof of your damages. Do not tough it out. Do not apologize for taking up the doctor’s time.
Identify and preserve everything. Photographs of the scene, the injuries, the vehicle, the sidewalk. Names and phone numbers of every witness. Receipts for everything — medical, travel, prescriptions, counseling. A journal of how the injuries or grief are affecting your daily life. A timeline of every communication with an insurance company.
Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company. Not the teen’s insurer, not the owner’s insurer, not your own. Refer them to us. If they call again, the answer is the same. If they show up at your home, you do not have to speak with them.
Do not post about the case on social media. Defense counsel will mine every public post. A photo of your family at a celebration, taken out of context, will be offered to a jury as evidence that you are not really grieving. Assume that anything you post will be shown to a jury in a courtroom, even if you delete it.
Do not sign anything from an insurance company. Not a check, not a release, not an authorization. If a check arrives, set it aside. We will tell you what to do with it.
Get the police report and incident number. Contact the Oakland Police Department and request the incident report. Note the report number. We will use it.
Call us. 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. We will talk you through the preservation letters, the timing, and the next step. We do not get paid unless we win. There is no risk in calling, and the preservation work cannot wait.
How We Build a Case Like This — The Proof Story
A wrongful-death or catastrophic-injury case is not won in the news cycle. It is won in the quiet, methodical work of building a record that the defense cannot rebut. Here is how we build it.
Week one. Preservation letters to the registered owner, the insurer, the police department, the tow yard, the cell phone carrier, and the known commercial properties with surveillance cameras. We identify witnesses and lock in their statements. We pull the police report and incident records.
Months one through three. Discovery into the teen’s driving history, his license status, his social media. Subpoenas to the DMV. Independent accident reconstruction from the EDR data. Human-factors analysis on the driver — what should he have seen, when should he have reacted, what was foreseeable. Toxicology review. Inspection of the vehicle for any defect that contributed.
Months three through nine. Depositions. The registered owner under oath: when did you buy this truck, who drove it, did you know your son drove it, what did you tell him about driving, did you ever see him drive dangerously, did you know he was unlicensed. The teen under oath. The parents under oath. The police officer under oath. The insurance adjuster under oath about the company’s claim-handling decisions.
Months nine to trial. Expert reports finalized. Mediation — a real, substantive negotiation in front of a respected neutral, with the case fully prepared for trial if the defense will not pay what the case is worth. If the case does not resolve, we try it. Twelve people from Alameda County — your neighbors — decide what your loved one’s life was worth and whether the defense has to pay.
We do not promise an outcome. We promise process. We promise the work. We promise that when the defense reads our preservation letter on day one, they understand that the case is being built by a firm that knows how it ends.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we sue a 17-year-old in California?
Yes. California law allows civil claims against minors, just as it does against adults. The practical complication is collecting any judgment from a minor who has no assets. That is exactly why we pursue the negligent-entrustment theory against the parents and the vicarious-liability theory against the registered owner — to put the case in front of insurance coverage and adult assets that can actually pay. The criminal case against the teen does not bar the civil case; it is a separate proceeding with a separate purpose.
What is negligent entrustment, in plain English?
Negligent entrustment is the legal claim against the person who handed over a dangerous thing — in this case, a full-size pickup truck — to someone they knew or should have known was not safe to use it. To prove it, we need to show (1) the entrustor supplied the vehicle, (2) the entrustor knew or should have known the driver was unlicensed, inexperienced, reckless, or otherwise unfit, and (3) the unfitness was a substantial factor in causing the harm. If we can show the teen had no license, or a history of dangerous driving, or social-media posts bragging about speeding, or any prior incidents the parent knew about, the parents are personally liable for the full damages — not capped at the minimum policy limits.
How long do we have to file?
California’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury and wrongful-death cases is two years from the date of injury or death. There are limited exceptions for minors, for tolling during criminal proceedings in some circumstances, and for delayed discovery. Waiting until the last minute is how cases die on procedural grounds. We file well before any deadline and we protect your rights throughout.
Will the criminal case help our civil case?
It can. The police investigation, the officer’s observations, the teen’s statements to police, and the toxicology results are all potentially usable in the civil case, subject to evidentiary rules. We coordinate with the criminal proceedings where it benefits your family, but we never wait for the criminal case to finish before we move on the evidence we control. Your civil case is your case, on your timeline.
What if our loved one was partly at fault?
California is a pure comparative negligence state. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, not eliminated. In a case where your loved one was lawfully on a public sidewalk on a Vision Zero corridor, we do not see how a jury would assign meaningful fault to the victim. But even if they did, the math under California law is favorable to victims, and we will fight every percentage point.
What about punitive damages?
Punitive damages are available in California where the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or a conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. The standard is high — clear and convincing evidence — but operating a 5,000-pound pickup truck at high speed on a crowded urban corridor where pedestrians are obviously present is the kind of conduct that can meet it. We evaluate punitive damages on the specific facts of each case.
How much is our case worth?
Honest answer: it depends on the ages and earning profiles of the decedents, the egregiousness of the conduct, the available insurance and reachable assets of the defendants, and how the evidence develops. In our experience, a triple-fatality pedestrian case in California with strong negligence-per-se facts can have a theoretical case value from the low millions to over twenty-five million dollars, but the realized value depends on what we can actually collect. We will give you an honest range after we have done the investigation. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Why is the teen being released? Does that mean there is no case?
The judge’s decision to release the juvenile pending trial reflects a finding under California juvenile-justice standards about risk of flight and danger to the community — not a finding about your civil rights. The release is a procedural ruling, not a verdict. The civil case has nothing to do with bail or release. Your right to sue for wrongful death or personal injury is independent of the criminal proceedings.
Who pays if the teen has no insurance and no assets?
This is exactly why we look beyond the teen. We look at the registered owner’s insurance (vicarious liability under California Vehicle Code Section 17150). We look at the parents’ homeowner’s policy and any umbrella coverage. We look at employer coverage if the teen was working at the time. We pursue negligent entrustment against the parents to access their personal assets. We do not stop at the teen.
What does it cost to hire Attorney911?
Nothing up front. We work on contingency. Our fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free, the calls are free, the preservation letters are free. You pay nothing out of pocket.
Can we afford not to act quickly?
You cannot afford to wait. The black box can be overwritten. Surveillance footage can be deleted. Witnesses can be contacted by the defense first. The preservation clock starts the day of the crash. Every day you wait is a day the defense is moving.
What should we do right now, today?
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. That is the only number you need. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We have a live person answering the phone, not an answering service. We will talk you through what to do tonight.
Why Attorney911 — The People Who Actually Handle Your Case
When you call us, you reach our firm, not a call center. The people who handle your case are the people whose names you will learn.
Ralph P. Manginello is our managing partner. He has been a practicing trial attorney for 27-plus years, with a Texas bar license dating to November 6, 1998, and federal-court admission in the Southern District of Texas. He has spent his career in courtrooms, including federal court, taking cases to verdict when the defense will not pay what they are worth. He was a journalist before he became a lawyer, which is why this page reads like a person and not a database — he has always believed that the most powerful thing a lawyer can do is tell the truth, plainly, to the person across the table. He built Attorney911 on a simple idea: families in crisis deserve a real lawyer on the phone when they call, and they deserve a real lawyer in the courtroom when the case is tried.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney. He spent years as an insurance-defense attorney at a national defense firm — inside the rooms where adjusters, defense counsel, and valuation software decide how to price claims exactly like yours. He learned Colossus, the reserve-setting process, the IME-doctor selection, the surveillance strategy, and every delay tactic the industry uses to suppress the value of a serious case. He now uses that knowledge for injured people, not against them. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — important because California’s Spanish-speaking families have historically been the most aggressively under-compensated group in personal-injury law, and we refuse to let that continue on our watch.
Together, we have built our practice around the kinds of cases that require investigation, persistence, and trial readiness: commercial-vehicle crashes, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death. We take California cases through our trial team, working with local counsel where required, and we move fast on the evidence that disappears if you wait. You can read more about how we approach wrongful-death claims and car and pedestrian accident cases on our practice pages.
Our track record reflects the kind of cases we take: millions recovered across our practice, including multi-million-dollar results in brain-injury, trucking wrongful death, and catastrophic-injury matters. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes — but the process that produces those results is available to your family today.
One Last Thing — The Reason We Do This Work
Three men are dead because a teenager drove a pickup truck too fast on a corridor where people were obviously going to be standing. Five more people are in pain. Families are sitting at kitchen tables tonight trying to figure out how to bury someone they love, or how to pay for the surgery the hospital says their survivor needs next week, or how to explain to a child why a parent is not coming home.
The civil justice system cannot bring those men back. It cannot undo the terror, the grief, the loss. But it can — and it does, every day, when families have the right lawyer — force the people who caused the harm to bear the full cost of what they did. It can preserve the memory of a life by demanding that its value be put on the record in a courtroom in front of twelve people who will listen. It can put a check in the hands of a family that lets them grieve without the additional cruelty of financial ruin. It can punish conduct that should not be tolerated, so that the next teenager who reaches for the keys thinks twice.
That is what we do. That is why we answer the phone at 2am. That is why our fee is contingent and our consultation is free and our preservation letters go out the same day.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. Hablamos Español. The call is free. The consultation is private. The work begins the day you decide you are ready for it. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
This page is legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation. To get advice tailored to the facts of your case, contact our firm for a free consultation.