A deputy crash brain injury lawsuit filed in Riverside County alleges that a sheriff’s deputy driving nearly 100 mph through a red light caused a deadly collision that killed a 21-year-old man and left his fiancée with permanent brain trauma.
What Happened
According to the lawsuit:
- The couple was running errands for their upcoming wedding
- They were traveling in a Tesla in Calimesa
- A Riverside County sheriff’s patrol vehicle approached at high speed
- The deputy allegedly ran a red light
- The patrol SUV struck the driver’s side of the Tesla
The crash killed:
- Gavin Hinkley, 21
His fiancée:
- Madeline Fox, 20
survived with catastrophic injuries.
Severe Brain Injury and Permanent Impairment
The lawsuit states Fox suffered:
- Permanent brain trauma
- Serious physical impairment
- Cognitive and neurological damage
Her attorney says she had to relearn basic functions, including:
- Swallowing
- Eating
- Walking
- Speaking
Her mother has reportedly been appointed as her guardian.
Crash Speed Is Central to the Lawsuit
According to a CHP report:
- Deputy allegedly traveled 100 mph seconds before impact
- Began braking only moments before the crash
- Was still traveling around 72 mph at impact
Investigators reportedly found:
- Emergency lights and sirens were activated
- The deputy recognized the Tesla as a hazard about one second before the collision
Legal Questions Raised by the Lawsuit
The case centers on whether the deputy acted with:
- Reasonable care
- Excessive recklessness
- Gross negligence
California Laws That May Apply
Government Liability
- Government Code §815.2
Public entities may be liable for employee negligence committed within the scope of employment.
Dangerous Condition Claims
- Government Code §835
Public entities may be liable for dangerous roadway conditions.
The lawsuit alleges:
- Utility equipment blocked visibility at the intersection.
Emergency Vehicle Duties
- Vehicle Code §21055
Emergency vehicles have certain exemptions during emergency responses.
BUT:
- Those exemptions are not unlimited.
Duty to Drive With Due Regard
- Vehicle Code §21056
Emergency drivers still have a duty to operate with “due regard for the safety of all persons.”
This is critical.
The central issue is not simply:
“Was he responding to a call?”
But:
“Was the manner of driving reckless under the circumstances?”
Additional Allegations
The lawsuit also alleges:
Visibility Problems
- Utility equipment obstructed sightlines
- Prevented the victims from seeing the patrol SUV
Medical Response Concerns
The complaint claims:
- Ambulance crews treated and transported the deputy first
- Despite more severe injuries inside the Tesla
Rights After a Catastrophic Brain Injury
Victims and families may pursue compensation for:
Economic Damages
- Emergency treatment
- ICU and hospitalization
- Neurological rehabilitation
- Future medical care
- Lost earning capacity
Non-Economic Damages
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of normal life
Wrongful Death Claims
Under CCP §377.60, families may seek damages for:
- Loss of companionship
- Funeral expenses
- Financial support losses
Get Help After a Brain Injury Crash
If you or a loved one suffered a brain injury in a serious vehicle collision, you may have legal options—even when a government vehicle is involved.
At the Brain Injury Help Center, we help families:
- Investigate liability
- Preserve critical evidence
- Pursue compensation for long-term care
