Newsletter

Hakimi v. City of Los Angeles: Lessons on Complaint Handling and Hazard Response

In September 2025, a Los Angeles jury awarded $48.8 million to the family of Daniel Hakimi after he suffered a catastrophic brain injury when his bicycle struck a large pothole. The evidence showed that residents had submitted complaints about the roadway defect for nearly two years before the incident. Despite repeated warnings, the hazard remained unrepaired.

Under California Government Code Section 835, public entities are liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of public property when they have actual or constructive notice of the condition and sufficient time to take protective measures. In Hakimi, the jurors concluded that the City had clear notice and an opportunity to rectify the hazard but failed to do so.

Read More

The outcome illustrates a growing trend of “nuclear verdicts” driven not only by the severity of injury, but also by juror anger at government inaction. The lesson for public agencies is clear: complaints should not be disregarded, even if they come from the same residents repeatedly.

Connection to Whitehead v. Oakland

Earlier this year, in Whitehead v. Oakland, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that public agencies have a non-delegable duty to maintain property in a non-dangerous condition, even when waivers are used. The Hakimi verdict illustrates the practical consequences of the same principle: when agencies fail to mitigate hazards despite repeated warnings, juries will severely punish them.

Together, Whitehead and Hakimi deliver a consistent message: risk transfer tools, such as waivers and indemnification language, are important, but they cannot replace diligent inspection, complaint handling, and timely maintenance.

What This Means for Public Agency Risk Management Strategy

The Hakimi decision underscores the importance of proactive systems for receiving, routing, and resolving hazard complaints. An inspection program alone is not enough—agencies must also demonstrate that they act on reports from the public.

Centralized Complaint Intake

• Establish a standard procedure to capture date, source, location, and hazard details.
• Route complaints, regardless of who receives them, to the department responsible.
• Why this matters: Helps ensure no complaint is “lost” or dismissed as routine.

Routing and Documentation

• Record which department or staff member received the complaint and when it was forwarded.
• Maintain a log of interim measures (cones, signage, temporary patching) and repair dates.
• Why this matters: Jurors expect agencies to show diligence even if permanent repair takes time.

Managing Repeat Complainants

• Consolidate duplicate complaints into a single open case.
• Acknowledge each report and link it to the same file with notes on status.
• Why this matters: Demonstrates responsiveness without overwhelming staff and prevents a narrative that the agency “ignored” persistent residents.

Staff Training and Culture of Reporting

• Train all employees, clerks, recreation staff, public safety dispatch, and maintenance crews, so that hazard complaints are documented and forwarded appropriately.
• Provide simple written instructions with the intake procedure.
• Why this matters: Jurors punish agencies when complaints “fall through the cracks.” Training creates consistency and defensibility.

Moving Forward

The Hakimi verdict illustrates how quickly unresolved complaints can escalate into catastrophic liability. Agencies are encouraged to:

• Review complaint intake and routing procedures.
• Adopt a standardized procedure for all staff.
• Train employees on how to document and forward complaints.
• Develop prioritization standards for hazard response.
• Maintain a defensible record of interim and permanent actions.

The California JPIA has released the Complaint & Hazard Reporting Guidelines and Best Practices in the online resource library. The document provides recommended best practices and an example intake tool that members may adapt to support their existing complaint handling and hazard response processes. The guidance is intended to help members recognize, document, and route complaints so that reported issues can be evaluated and addressed through the appropriate internal processes.

For questions or additional information, please contact your regional risk manager.

< Back to Full Issue Print Article