Construction manager Tishman faces a possible jury trial in California state court over a tragic 2019 accident involving a dump truck making trips related to an apartment and hotel project in downtown Los Angeles that struck and killed two sisters at an intersection.

The truck driver, making a right turn, killed Marlene and Amy Lorenzo, 14 and 12 years old, while they were walking to school.

The accident came in the early phases of work involving excavation for The Grand LA, a large dual-tower development. The sisters’ father sued the city, the school district and companies involved in the project for wrongful death, including the developer, Core/Related Grand Ave. Owner and general contractor Tishman Construction Corp. of California.

After winning a summary judgment from a trial court judge who determined that Core/Related and Tishman had no duty of care in the truck accident, the father prevailed in an appeals court decision in March. The three-judge panel sent the case back to the trial court and a possible jury trial.

A critical factor in the case is that the staging area for some project trucks had not been properly licensed with the city, according to the appeals court decision.

Two defense attorneys that frequently represent employers and have no connection to the case wrote that the appeals court expanded the idea of liability beyond reasonable limits. 

Law firm Hanson Bridgett, in an April website post, criticized the majority decision as an overreach, expanding liability to high-tier project participants for an off-site accident and diverging from typical on-site liability norms. The law firm agreed with the dissent in the 2-1 appeals court decision, arguing that truck routes posed risks regardless of staging, and suggested practical measures like enhanced insurance and subcontractor oversight.

Hanson Bridgett anticipated a possible California Supreme Court review due to the ruling’s implications.

Numerous subcontracting tiers separated the developer and general contractor from the dump truck driver in Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering. Graphic courtesy of Hanson Bridgett

Sewar K. Sunnaa, an associate at the firm, says “given the breadth of the court’s ruling in this case, and the implications that such expanded liability can have, we would not be surprised if the appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling in an effort to further clarify or at least narrow down the scope of liability.” 

A different law firm, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, had another point of view and saw the decision as a warning. If the Superior Court’s decision stands, that law firm suggests, it potentially redefines the duty of care for contractors, holding them accountable for off-site subcontractor actions when permit violations foreseeably increase public safety risks.

In a website post last month, Wood, Smith wrote that the appeals court majority used the decision’s reinforcement of state Civil Code section 1714’s broad duty of care to sound a wake-up call for developers. They must adhere to permits to avoid liability for subcontractor actions off-site, the law firm state, and to make sure they have transparency and safety compliance.

In the weeks following the accident, a GoFundMe website created on behalf of the Lorenzo sisters’ family raised $36,000 to help with burial expenses for Amy, who remained alive for several weeks before dying.

Neither Tishman’s parent company, AECOM, nor their attorney could immediately be reached for comment. The attorney for the Lorenzo family did not return a call for comment.

Prosecutors obtained the conviction of dump truck driver Stanley Randle on two misdemeanor counts of vehicular manslaughter, the appeals court judges wrote. He was employed by Los Morales Trucking,  a subcontractor of Commodity Trucking—hired by Calex–to broker trucks to haul soil from the project site, according to the appeals court decision.

The three-judge state appeal panel reached its verdict in late March. The plantiffs in Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc. also name excavation contractor Calex Engineering as a defendant.

How The Lorenzo Sisters Died

Randle struck the Lorenzo sisters at about 8 a.m. while driving a 50- to 60-ft-long double bottom dump truck with significant blind spots, the appeals court judges wrote. He was bringing the truck from his home to the un-permitted staging area 14 blocks away from The Grand jobsite.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ use of an un-permitted staging area, violating a city permit for on-site staging, allowed trucks to be routed through pedestrian-heavy streets without safety assessments and therefore contributed to the accident.

The GoFundMe page created on behalf of the sisters’ family.

The trial court had ruled in favor of the defendants saying that they owed no duty of care, meaning that they were not responsible for the circumstances that lead to the girls’ deaths. 

The parents then appealed the summary judgment. 

The two-judge majority of the appellate court found that the defendants did, in fact have a duty under California Civil Code section 1714. It imposes liability for injuries caused by lack of ordinary care, unless specific factors used by the state courts allow for an exception.  

The court found the harm to the girls was foreseeable and there were increased accident risks because of the bypassing the city’s safety evaluation for the unpermitted staging area.

In essence, they wrote, there is a direct connection between the permit violation and the accident because the truck routes sometimes extended to the site of the accident. The majority emphasized that the unpermitted staging foreseeably heightened risks by avoiding safety reviews in which the city would have assessed routes and pedestrian safety.

The permit violation was a contributing factor, the judges wrote, and therefore subject to jury trial. The majority also noted that the defendants’ misrepresentation of staging plans to the city meant that they had ‘moral blame’, and that this ruling would encourage future permit compliance, preventing harm in other circumstances. 

The defendants argued that the accident, 14 blocks from the staging area, was too remote for liability, and Randle’s negligence was its sole cause. They claimed minimal involvement in the staging decision.

Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild dissented from the other judges and argued that the defendants owed no duty to protect pedestrians from a negligent driver so far from the staging area, saying in essence that the connection was too flimsy. She said that trucks would navigate crowded streets regardless of the staging location, reducing the defendants’ culpability.