> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# City moves to exit case
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-moves-to-exit-case/
- Published: 2006-06-09T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T18:16:51.000Z
- Author: Kevin Herrera
- Tags: Crime, Downtown, #archive-import

*Judge considers clearing City Hall of responsibility in Farmers Market tragedy*

SM COURTHOUSE — A judge is considering whether or not City Hall can be held liable for a catastrophic car accident nearly three years ago in which an elderly man drove his car through a crowded Farmers Market, killing 10 and injuring dozens more.

Judge Valerie Baker said Thursday before more than a dozen attorneys and spectators that she will reconsider her tentative motion, issued June 6, which ordered City Hall and Bayside District Corp. be removed from a civil lawsuit filed by victims of the crash, who charge both entities, along with the operators of the Farmers Market, of failing to properly protect the public on the day of the accident.

Her tentative ruling found that Santa Monica could not be held liable because of a design immunity, and that Bayside, a management company that acts as a liaison between City Hall and merchants downtown, has no duty to ensure public safety at the Farmers Market.

Baker said she should issue a final ruling by Wednesday, June 14, on motions filed by City Hall and Bayside to be excused from the case.

In what attorneys for the victims described as one of the most tragic events in Santa Monica’s history, Russell Weller, now 89, apparently lost control of his car after he rear-ended a Mercedes Benz at the intersection of Fourth Street and Arizona Avenue on July 16, 2003\. Weller then hit the accelerator instead of the brake and traveled 995 feet through the bustling Farmers Market at speeds of up to 60 mph, avoiding parked cars but hurling pedestrians into the air before stopping, a California Highway Patrol report said.

The 10 people killed ranged in age from 7 months to 78 years old.

Weller has pleaded not guilty to 10 felony counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. No date for the criminal trial has been set. A hearing is scheduled for July 31.

The criminal trial has been delayed several times, forcing Baker to postpone the beginning of the civil action because Weller has refused to give testimony until his criminal proceedings are complete. Attorneys for City Hall have argued that without Weller’s testimony, they will be unable to present an adequate defense.

Attorneys for the victims have charged county prosecutors of purposefully postponing the criminal trial for political gain, which has resulted in some of the victims being denied their right to have their cases heard in a timely fashion. At least one person injured in the crash has died while waiting to testify in the civil trial, and others are said to be in poor health. Once they die, their claims are dismissed, which is exactly what the city wants, attorneys for the victims charge.

During more than four hours of oral arguments, Geoff Wells and Gregory Moreno, attorneys representing the victims, pointed to Bayside’s role as an advisor to City Hall and as the guardian of the promenade, including the maintenance, security and operation of one of the city’s main tourist attractions. At the ends of the promenade, there are steel barriers preventing cars from driving onto the pedestrian walkway. Moreno said Bayside should have known that the same kind of danger posed by cars driving onto the promenade was also present at the Farmers Market, even more so since the market is protected only by “plastic sawhorses.”

“They (Bayside officials) had that knowledge, and they had a contractual obligation to advise them (city officials) of that danger,” Moreno said. “This case cries for the community to decide.”

Wells said Bayside was trying to avoid responsibility, passing the buck onto the city and operators of the Farmers Market, Southland Farmers Market Association. Wells also said that testimony by Bayside’s executive director, Kathleen Rawson, on the organization’s duties and responsibility was contradictory to a city-issued contract signed by Rawson.

Wells continued to pick apart Rawson’s testimony in a deposition conducted in April in which Rawson said no one from the city had ever contacted Bayside regarding security at the Farmers Market.

“There is no factual showing that Ms. Rawson had personal knowledge of whether or not all 11 of her employees had spoken with someone from the city,” Wells said.“On that basis alone, the motion for summary judgment should be denied … Let a jury decide.”

Attorneys representing Bayside said Rawson, as executive director, is the only person who would know with certainty whether or not her employees had spoken with city officials about something as serious as security on or near the promenade, and if she said no one spoke with her employees, than no one did.

As for the contract to provide services, attorneys for Bayside said nowhere does the contract state that Bayside would be responsible for activities taking place within its jurisdiction, that being downtown. While the operation and maintenance of the promenade is something that Bayside is heavily involved in, they do not make the final decision. That duty lies with the City Council.

Following a break for lunch, attorneys for the victims began their offensive regarding City Hall’s motion to be excused from the case. Attorneys representing City Hall argued Santa Monica is protected because the design of the intersection where the accident occurred was approved by planning officials as being designed according to proper safety standards. If that’s true, City Hall would be granted design immunity.

However, attorneys for the plaintiffs counter City Hall was negligent because it created a potentially dangerous situation by allowing a Farmers Market to be held in the middle of a busy street with only plastic barricades in place to prevent a car from driving through. With increased traffic, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued city officials should have adjusted the barriers, which were put in place in 1987, to reflect the greater possibility that an accident could occur.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 9, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/060906.pdf?ref=smdp.com)