We all have a deal with the city. An unspoken contract. We pay our taxes, we obey the traffic lights, and in return, the people in charge are supposed to keep the whole thing from crumbling into chaos. For example, you’re supposed to be able to ride a bike down the street without a pothole swallowing you whole. In the case of Hakimi v. City of Los Angeles, that deal was broken. Brutally.

Picture yourself as a member of the jury: You sit in a stiff chair in a beige room that smells of stale coffee and low-grade anxiety. You watch a man, Daniel Hakimi, who can no longer speak for himself. You see the videos. The raw, unblinking footage of what his life is now, every single day. It’s a gut punch. The kind that leaves you winded.

Plaintiff’s counsel is making a meal of this, and that’s the first course you’re served: pure, uncut sympathy. It’s heavy. It’s supposed to be. But sympathy is cheap. A case can’t be built on feelings alone. There must be a narrative—and every narrative needs a villain.

Plaintiff’s counsel then delivers the second course. It’s a stack of paper: two years’ worth of emails, phone logs, and official complaints from neighbors about the pothole. People were repeatedly saying, “Hey, there’s a dangerous hole out there. Someone’s gonna get killed.” You can almost feel the desperation of the people who took the time to report the perpetrating pothole. But their warnings were ignored, disregarded, and filed away in some gray cabinet by someone who was probably just waiting to go home when their work shift ended.

This is where the flavor of the whole dish changes. That heavily ladled sympathy gets a sharp, acidic hit of anger. This wasn’t a tragic accident anymore. This was a choice by the city—a to-do list with a checkmark missing. A distant problem that was somebody else’s until it slammed itself into the Hakimi family. The city didn’t just fail to fix a road. They knew it was inevitable. They had it in writing. And they did nothing.

Plaintiff’s counsel served the jury a plate of the city’s clear indifference and the Hakimi family’s horrific loss. So the jury, in return, ordered the city to pay the check that had come due.

Factors Driving the $48.8 Million Hakimi Award

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury recently awarded them a staggering $48.8 million in the case of Hakimi v. City of Los Angeles, sending a clear message about public entity accountability.¹ . In Hakimi, the juror’s anger drove a final award that included $9.8 million for Mr. Hakimi’s wife for her loss of consortium claim.³ ⁴ This outcome is a prime example of what lawyers refer to as a Nuclear Verdict®—an award in excess of $10 million that is driven by juror anger and is often disproportionate to the evidence presented. An objective analysis of the case reveals several key factors that likely combined to produce this result.

Three Factors Driving the Verdict

An examination of the trial evidence points to three primary factors that likely influenced the jury’s decision-making process and a final award.

1. Catastrophic, Life-Altering Injuries. The baseline for any large damages award begins with the plaintiff’s injuries. In this case, Daniel Hakimi suffered a severe and permanent traumatic brain injury after the tandem bicycle he was riding struck a major pavement maintenance failure of the city. The evidence presented showed that Mr. Hakimi is now non-verbal and requires constant, 24/7 medical care for the rest of his life, establishing a clear basis for substantial future medical costs.³

2. Clear Evidence of Prior Notice. The plaintiff’s case did not hinge on a simple accident but on the defendant’s alleged negligence. Under California Government Code section 835, a public entity is liable for injuries caused by a “dangerous condition” of its property if it had actual or constructive notice of the hazard with sufficient time to have taken protective measures.² The plaintiff’s counsel successfully presented evidence that residents had made numerous complaints about that specific roadway defect for at least two years prior to the incident, satisfying the critical element of notice.

3. A Pattern of Inaction. Beyond establishing notice, the evidence painted a picture of governmental inaction. The jury heard that, in spite of repeated warnings, the City of Los Angeles failed to repair the disaster waiting to happen. It’s a narrative that turned the jury’s perception of the case from one of an unfortunate accident to one of conscious disregard for public safety. That blatant negligence created a powerful catalyst for juror anger, intended to punish the defendant and prevent/deter a future negligence.

A National Trend and a New Defense Strategy

Hakimi reflects a broader national trend that Tyson & Mendes has studied extensively and developed a way to effectively counter strategies used by plaintiffs’ attorneys: The Apex. The Apex, which is detailed in the firm’s upcoming book, Nuclear Verdicts®: The Apex – Break the Pattern. The book and strategy are based on a data-driven analysis of 100 Nuclear Verdicts®.

National Managing Partner Cayce Lynch explains, “That analysis revealed clear patterns – both in how plaintiffs’ counsel are trying their cases, and how the defense is responding.”⁵ The Apex shows that the defense industry has been slow to adapt to plaintiff tactics specifically designed to inflame juror passions.

The Apex strategy aims to provide a new framework for defense counsel. Founding Partner Robert F. Tyson, Jr. states, “Now we’ve built a strategy that layers every piece together to defuse juror anger. That’s how we win. And that’s how we change the game.”⁵ In a case like Hakimi, the strategy would be to immediately address the evidence of the notice, and then the lack of response. By accepting responsibility and appealing to jurors’ reasonableness and common sense, defense counsel can diffuse juror anger, even when the facts are against their client. Using The Apex can prevent juror anger from becoming the primary driver of a damages award.

Takeaway

The $48.8 million verdict in Hakimi v. City of Los Angeles exemplifies the issues with Nuclear Verdicts® driven by the powerful combination of catastrophic damages and the compelling evidence of prolonged defendant negligence. California law holds public entities liable for dangerous conditions when they had prior notice and failed to act. This was a key statutory element that the plaintiff’s counsel successfully established and emphasized. This case underscores the patterns plaintiffs use to generate large awards, and it highlights the legal community’s focus on developing new defense strategies, such as The Apex. By using The Apex, defense counsel can neutralize juror anger and re-focus the trial narrative on a fair and reasoned assessment of damages.

Keep Reading

Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring From Zero to AI‑Augmented Litigator: My Journey from Avoidance and Fear to Delighted Learner Extraordinary Review: The Life of a Writ in California How I Use the Core Four as the Parent of Teenagers New Laws for The New Year – How To Stay on Santa’s “Good” List in 2026 A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections

Sources

¹ Hakimi v. City of Los Angeles (Super. Ct. L.A. County, June 28, 2024, No. 20STCV12276) Verdict.

² Gov. Code, § 835.

³ Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, Press Release, LA SUPERIOR COURT JURY AWARDS $48,815,000 TO HAKIMI FAMILY IN DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY CASE AGAINST THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (June 28, 2024) https://www.psbr.law/2024/06/los-angeles-superior-court-jury-awards-48815000-to-hakimi-family-in-dangerous-condition-of-public-property-case-against-the-city-of-los-angeles/.

⁴ Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382.

⁵ Tyson & Mendes, LLP, Press Release, National Insurance Defense Firm Tyson & Mendes Announces The Apex, A Groundbreaking New Strategy To Combat Nuclear Verdicts® (Accessed Aug. 20, 2025)