This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia recently posted about an $18 million settlement stemming from a high-speed crash involving a Los Angeles Police Department patrol vehicle. Mejia noted the settlement — the largest liability payout for the city this fiscal year — arose after an LAPD officer sped through an intersection and crashed his cruiser into another car, leaving two elderly brothers with life-threatening injuries.
The case went to trial. The city fought it. And then, in the middle of the trial, the city decided to settle. The controller’s post raised an important question: Why do municipalities often choose to settle these cases only after fighting victims in court for years?
The answer is uncomfortable but important. In many cases involving government misconduct or negligence, the criminal justice system provides little meaningful accountability. Charges may be reduced, penalties may be minimal and the conduct that caused devastating harm can fade from public view long before victims receive answers. When that happens, the civil justice system becomes the only place left where accountability can occur.
The public often misunderstands the role civil litigation plays in these situations. Lawsuits are frequently portrayed as opportunistic or excessive, particularly when they involve large settlements paid by public entities. But civil cases exist precisely for situations where serious harm occurs and other mechanisms fail to provide meaningful consequences.
The criminal justice system serves an essential purpose. Its role is to punish wrongdoing, and it operates under the highest standard of proof in our legal system — guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard protects against wrongful convictions and ensures that criminal punishment is imposed only when the evidence is overwhelming.
But that high standard also means many cases involving negligence, dangerous conduct or institutional failures do not result in criminal penalties that reflect the severity of the harm caused.
Civil courts exist to fill that gap. In civil cases, juries evaluate whether it is more likely than not that a defendant’s actions caused injury or death. Victims and their families can subpoena documents, take sworn testimony and examine evidence in a transparent forum that often reveals facts the public would never otherwise see.
Civil cases often expose failures that would otherwise remain hidden — failures in training, supervision, safety policies or institutional decision-making. When those failures are brought into the open, they can lead to reforms that make communities safer.
The Encino crash highlighted by Mejia’s post illustrates the stakes. The city chose to fight the case in court, as it often does, before ultimately agreeing to settle the lawsuit during trial. But compensation alone cannot answer the deeper questions families and communities often have after tragedies like this.
What exactly happened? What policies allowed it to occur? And what changes will prevent it from happening again? Transparency within law enforcement and government agencies is essential to answering those questions.
In the criminal case connected to the crash, the officer ultimately pleaded to a misdemeanor. There was no jail time. As part of the resolution, the officer reportedly agreed to record a public service announcement about safe police driving — a step that, at least in theory, could have served as a public acknowledgment of the seriousness of the incident.
Yet that recording has never been released publicly. And the agencies involved have declined to make it available. If the point of such a requirement is public education and accountability, keeping it hidden defeats the purpose.
Civil litigation cannot replace the criminal justice system, nor should it have to. But when criminal consequences are minimal or nonexistent, civil courts often become the only venue where evidence is fully examined and responsibility is determined.
That is not a flaw in our system. It is one of its safeguards.
