Paralyzed Rider Sues City, County, CalTrans

A motorcycle crash case in San Jose just turned into something bigger than a fight over one driver’s mistake. Jeffrey Garmany, who was left paralyzed from the neck down after a June 9, 2025 collision, is now suing the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, and Caltrans along with putting the spotlight on the driver who made the illegal U-turn. The core claim is simple — this was not just bad driving, it was a dangerous intersection that public agencies failed to fix. (ktvu.com) ### What happened at the intersection? Garmany was riding westbound on Fruitvale Avenue on his way to work when a driver traveling southbound on Corlista Drive made an illegal U-turn directly into his path. Garmany hit the vehicle and was thrown from his motorcycle. The crash caused a fractured neck and spine, a punctured lung, broken ribs, and other severe injuries, and he was left quadriplegic. (ktvu.com) ### Who was the driver? The driver was identified as Misael Lara-Moya of San Jose. Investigators found he caused the crash by making the illegal U-turn. KTVU’s account says he fled the scene, then later reported his vehicle stolen, and was arrested on suspicion of felony hit-and-run. (ktvu.com)? Because this kind of lawsuit uses a different theory of blame. The Garmanys are saying the intersection itself was a “dangerous condition of public property.” In plain English, that means the road layout, controls, visibility, or warning setup was unsafe enough that public agencies ha(ktvu.com)ntrol the intersection. (ktvu.com) ### What exactly do they say was missing? The most specific allegation is that the intersection lacked adequate signage, lighting, and traffic-control devices. That matters because these cases usually rise or fall on details like that — not just “the road felt unsafe,” but whether there were concrete fixes available th(ktvu.com)isk. (maryalexanderlaw.com) ### Why include Caltrans and the county? Basically, because road responsibility can be split. One agency may control the street, another may handle parts of the signal system, adjacent roadway, or design standards. The lawsuit names all three public entities, which suggests the plaintiffs do not want each agency pointing at the o(maryalexanderlaw.com)ase number 26CV492804. (maryalexanderlaw.com) ### What are the damages here? They are huge, even if no dollar figure has been made public. Garmany’s injuries required major medical treatment and are alleged to carry long-term consequences including disability, pain, and lost earning capacity. His wife, Laura Garmany, is also a plaintiff, which usually signals claims tied to the broader impact on family life and care. (maryalexanderlaw.com) ### What makes this case matter beyond one crash? The real fight is over foreseeability. If the plaintiffs can show the intersection had known safety problems and that practical fixes were ignored, then the case becomes a test of public-agency responsibility, not just driver negligence. That is the part cities and transportation agencies worry about, because one successful case can invite scrutiny of similar intersections nearby. (ktvu.com) ### Bottom line? This lawsuit is trying to move the story from “one reckless U-turn” to “a crash the system helped make possible.” If that argument sticks, the consequences go well beyond compensation — it could force a hard look at who is supposed to fix dangerous roads before somebody else gets hurt. (ktvu.com)