Preliminary findings
Investigators said surveillance video recovered from a nearby business provided a clearer picture of the moments leading up to the collision. According to a police news release issued Saturday, the preliminary investigation indicates the Metro bus was stopped when the pedestrian moved underneath it, and as the bus pulled away from the stop, she was struck and sustained fatal injuries.The bus involved
Metro said the bus was operating on the westbound Line 33 at the time of the collision. In a statement, the transit agency said the westbound Metro 33 Line bus was pulling away from the stop at Main Street and Ocean Park Boulevard when it made contact with a pedestrian, and that preliminary reports indicated the pedestrian was not in a crosswalk and positioned herself under the bus as it pulled away. Metro extended its sympathies to the woman’s family and friends and thanked the Santa Monica Police and Fire Departments for their response, noting that the Santa Monica Police Department is leading the investigation. Early footage from the scene showed both a Metro bus and a Santa Monica Big Blue Bus nearby, which initially caused some confusion about which vehicle was involved. While both buses were part of the investigation, police said it was the Metro bus that struck and killed the victim. Police noted that a Big Blue Bus vehicle that arrived at the stop moments after the collision was temporarily held for documentation purposes before being released.Road closures
Main Street was closed between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hollister Avenue during the investigation, and westbound traffic on Ocean Park Boulevard approaching Main Street was impacted. Area streets have since reopened.Investigation ongoing
The case remains an active Santa Monica Police Department investigation. Officers said the investigation is in its early stages and detectives have not determined what led up to the crash. Anyone with information has been asked to contact the Santa Monica Police Department.References
- KTLA — Police release and preliminary investigation findings
- ABC7 Los Angeles — Metro statement and incident details
- Santa Monica Daily Press — Scene, road closures, and bus identification
- KTLA — Video footage from the scene (Instagram)
Hit by a Bus in California: Who Can Be Held Liable When a Transit or Municipal Bus Injures or Kills a Pedestrian?
Pedestrian collisions involving public buses are among the most legally complex injury cases in California. The vehicle is often operated by a city, county, or regional transit authority, which means a survivor or grieving family is not simply suing a driver — they are pursuing a government entity, subject to special duties, special deadlines, and special defenses. This guide explains, in general terms, how California law allocates responsibility when a transit or municipal bus strikes a pedestrian, who can potentially be held liable, and why the procedural rules make early legal review critical. It is general information, not legal advice about any specific incident.
Key Takeaways
- Public bus operators are common carriers and owe pedestrians a heightened standard of care under California Civil Code §2100 — a higher bar than ordinary negligence.
- When the bus is run by a public entity (a transit district, city, or county), an injury claim is governed by the California Government Claims Act, which generally requires a written claim within six months of the incident before any lawsuit can be filed.
- Liability can extend beyond the operator to the transit agency (respondeat superior), and in some fact patterns to a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code §835.
- California uses pure comparative fault, so a pedestrian found partially at fault is not barred from recovery — their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault, and the specific facts of each case drive that allocation heavily.
- Compass Law Group has recovered $250 million+ for California injury victims and families. Consultations are free and confidential, and there are no fees unless we win.
Why Bus Pedestrian Cases Are Different From Ordinary Car Accidents
Two features set transit-bus pedestrian cases apart from a standard vehicle collision. First, the elevated duty of care: under California Civil Code §2100, common carriers — including public transit operators — must use the utmost care and diligence for the safety of those affected by their operation, not merely ordinary reasonable care. Second, the public-entity defendant: most fixed-route buses in California are operated by transit districts, cities, or counties, which triggers the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §810 et seq.) and a distinct set of procedural rules and immunities that do not apply to private defendants. A general personal injury approach is not enough; these cases require attorneys who litigate government-liability claims specifically.
Who Can Be Held Liable When a Bus Strikes a Pedestrian in California?
Identifying every potentially responsible party is one of the most consequential parts of building a transit-pedestrian case. Depending on the facts, liability may attach to more than one defendant.
- The bus operator: The driver may be directly liable for negligent operation — failing to keep a proper lookout, pulling away from a stop without adequate observation, failing to yield, or violating a Vehicle Code provision (which can support negligence per se). The common-carrier standard means the operator’s conduct is measured against the utmost care, not ordinary care.
- The transit agency or municipality (respondeat superior): A public employer is generally vicariously liable for an employee’s negligent acts within the scope of employment under Government Code §815.2. This is what brings the agency’s insurance and resources into the case.
- The agency for negligent training, supervision, or maintenance: Independent of the driver’s conduct, an agency may be liable where inadequate operator training, ignored safety protocols, or a poorly maintained vehicle contributed to the collision.
- Dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code §835): In some fact patterns — a poorly designed stop, obstructed sightlines, inadequate signage or signal timing — the public entity may face a separate dangerous-condition theory if it had notice and failed to correct the hazard.
- A third party or contractor: Where service is contracted out, or where another vehicle, a maintenance contractor, or a component manufacturer contributed, additional defendants may share responsibility.
Because multiple theories can apply simultaneously, an experienced California pedestrian accident lawyer evaluates every avenue from the outset rather than assuming the driver is the only defendant.
The Common Carrier Standard: Why Bus Operators Owe Pedestrians a Higher Duty
California Civil Code §2100 imposes on common carriers a duty to use the utmost care and diligence for safe operation. California courts have long applied this elevated standard to public transit. Practically, this affects how an operator’s split-second decisions are judged — for example, the observation an operator must make before pulling away from a stop, the management of mirror blind zones around the front and underside of the vehicle, and adherence to “observe before proceeding” operating rules. Where the facts show the operator could and should have detected a pedestrian a reasonably careful carrier would have seen, the heightened duty strengthens the claim. Where the pedestrian was genuinely undetectable to a careful operator, the same standard may not produce liability — which is why the underlying facts, often captured on transit and business surveillance video, are decisive.
The Government Claims Act: The Deadline That Can End a Case Before It Starts
This is the single most important procedural rule in any case against a public transit agency. Under the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §910 et seq.), before suing a public entity for personal injury or wrongful death, the claimant must generally present a written claim to that entity within six months of the incident. The claim must describe the incident, the injuries, and the amount sought. If the agency rejects the claim or does not respond within the statutory period, a lawsuit window then opens — but it is short.
Missing the six-month presentation deadline can permanently bar an otherwise strong case. Limited relief exists through a late-claim application, but it is discretionary and far from guaranteed. This is precisely why anyone injured by a public bus — or the family of someone killed — should consult a California pedestrian accident attorney as early as possible. The clock runs from the date of the incident, not from the date a family decides to act.
Comparative Fault: What Happens When the Pedestrian May Be Partly Responsible
California follows a pure comparative negligence rule. A pedestrian who is found partially at fault is not denied recovery; instead, the award is reduced by their assigned percentage of fault. In bus-pedestrian cases, fault allocation is heavily fact-driven — jurors weigh factors such as crosswalk use, signal compliance, visibility, and the operator’s adherence to the common-carrier standard. The strength of the available evidence, especially video and the agency’s own operating records, tends to determine how a jury apportions responsibility. This is also why honest case screening matters: the same legal framework that produces a strong recovery on one set of facts can produce little or nothing on another.
Wrongful Death and Survival Claims When a Pedestrian Is Killed
When a pedestrian dies, California recognizes two distinct claims. A wrongful death action under Code of Civil Procedure §377.60 belongs to statutorily defined heirs — generally a spouse, domestic partner, children, or others entitled under the statute — and compensates the family’s losses, including loss of financial support, household services, and the loss of love, companionship, and guidance. A separate survival action under §377.30 belongs to the decedent’s estate and recovers losses the decedent sustained before death. Damages, standing, and the available categories of recovery differ between the two, and government-defendant rules apply to both. Determining who has standing — and whether identifiable heirs exist — is an early, threshold question in any fatal transit case.
What Damages May Be Recoverable
Depending on the facts and the surviving claimants, recoverable damages in a transit-pedestrian case may include past and future medical and rehabilitation costs, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and, in fatal cases, the wrongful-death damages described above. Punitive damages are generally unavailable against public entities. The interaction between the common-carrier duty, the Government Claims Act, and comparative fault shapes the realistic value of any given case — which is why a candid, facts-first evaluation is more useful to an injured person or grieving family than a generic promise.
How Compass Law Group Evaluates Transit and Bus Pedestrian Cases
Pursuing a claim against a public transit agency requires attorneys who handle government-liability litigation specifically — not general practitioners. At Compass Law Group, California pedestrian accident lawyers Joseph Shirazi (Bar #265403) and Simon Esfandi (Bar #275307) lead a team that has recovered more than $250 million for clients across a wide range of injury matters, including claims against government entities.
Our firm offers free, completely confidential consultations. We handle pedestrian and transit-injury cases on a strict no win, no fee basis — you pay nothing unless we recover for you. We serve clients statewide from offices in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, and Bell Gardens. Part of representing clients honestly is candidly assessing causation and comparative fault at intake — including telling someone when the facts do not support a viable claim. Our full practice areas reflect a firm built for complex injury litigation. Call (213) 320-1001 for a free, confidential consultation.
Q: How long do I have to file a claim if I was hit by a public bus in California?
Generally six months. When a public transit agency, city, or county is involved, the California Government Claims Act requires a written claim presented to the entity within six months of the incident before a lawsuit can be filed. This is much shorter than the general two-year personal injury statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure §335.1, and missing it can permanently bar your case. A limited, discretionary late-claim process exists but is not guaranteed. Contact a California pedestrian accident attorney as soon as possible to protect this deadline.
Q: Can I still recover compensation if I was partly at fault for the collision?
Possibly. California follows pure comparative negligence, meaning a pedestrian found partially at fault is not barred from recovery; the award is reduced by the assigned percentage of fault. For example, a recovery reduced by a 30% fault finding still leaves 70%. How fault is apportioned depends heavily on the specific facts — crosswalk use, signal compliance, visibility, and the bus operator’s compliance with the heightened common-carrier standard. An attorney can evaluate how comparative fault is likely to apply to your specific circumstances.
Q: Who can be sued if a city or transit district bus injured someone?
Potentially the bus operator, the public agency that employs them, and in some fact patterns the agency under a dangerous-condition-of-public-property theory or for negligent training, supervision, or maintenance. The agency is generally vicariously liable for the operator’s negligence within the scope of employment under Government Code §815.2. Where service is contracted out or another party contributed, additional defendants may share responsibility. Identifying every responsible party early is essential to a full recovery.
Q: What is the common carrier standard and why does it matter in bus cases?
Under California Civil Code §2100, common carriers — including public transit operators — must use the utmost care and diligence for the safety of those affected by their operation, a higher standard than ordinary reasonable care. In bus-pedestrian cases this affects how an operator’s observations and decisions are judged, including the duty to observe carefully before pulling away from a stop and to manage blind zones around the vehicle. It can strengthen a claim where a careful operator should have detected the pedestrian, though the underlying facts remain decisive.
Q: If a family member was killed by a bus, what claims can the family bring?
California recognizes two distinct claims. A wrongful death action under Code of Civil Procedure §377.60 belongs to statutorily defined heirs and compensates the family’s losses, including loss of support and loss of companionship. A separate survival action under §377.30 belongs to the decedent’s estate for losses sustained before death. Both are subject to the Government Claims Act six-month deadline when a public entity is involved. A threshold question is who has legal standing to bring the wrongful death claim. An attorney can explain how these claims apply to a specific situation.
References
- California Civil Code §2100 — Common Carrier Duty of Care
- California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §810 et seq.) — Claims Against Public Entities
- California Code of Civil Procedure §377.30 et seq. — Survival and Wrongful Death Actions
Joseph Shirazi
Managing Partner, Compass Law Group, LLP
California Bar #265403
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is unique. This article is general information and not legal advice.
Steps to Take If You or a Family Member Is Injured by a Bus in California
- Get medical care and document everything. Prompt treatment protects your health and creates the medical record that establishes the nature and severity of the injuries — central to any damages claim.
- Identify the operating agency. Determine which entity ran the bus — a transit district, city, or county. This determines which Government Claims Act deadline and procedures apply.
- Preserve and request evidence quickly. Transit and nearby business video, dispatch and maintenance records, and operator logs can be decisive but are often retained only briefly. Early legal action helps preserve them before routine deletion.
- Note the six-month government claim deadline. Calendar it from the incident date, not from when you decide to act. This is the deadline that most often ends otherwise valid public-entity cases.
- Consult a government-liability injury attorney early. Public-entity cases involve claim-presentation rules, immunities, and dangerous-condition standards that require specialized experience. Compass Law Group offers free, confidential consultations on a no win, no fee basis.
- Limit public and social media statements. Defense counsel for agencies routinely review claimants’ public posts for statements that can be used to reduce or contest a claim. Discuss the case only with your attorney.
- Expect a candid assessment. A reputable firm will evaluate causation and comparative fault honestly — including advising when the facts do not support a viable claim. That candor protects you from pursuing a case that cannot succeed.
