On Feb. 17, 2017, plaintiffs’ decedent Michael Williams, 41, was driving on Pebble Beach Drive, in a residential neighborhood in Victorville. He reached an area of the road that included a low water crossing — known as a "channel crossing" or "Arizona crossing" — whereby water crosses over the top of the roadway during flooding events. At that location, Pebble Beach Drive intersects with the Oro Grande Wash, an improved natural watercourse that runs north through the city toward the Mojave River. As a result, the roadway included a channel crossing, which is common in high desert areas, and a depression to allow water to flow over the roadway for drainage when there is flooding. As Williams attempted to drive through the area, his vehicle was swept into the wash by floodwaters caused by flash flooding from an intense rainstorm. Williams became trapped in his car as floodwaters and debris submerged his vehicle. Rescue workers were unable to save him, and he ultimately drowned. Thelia Marques, acting as the guardian ad litem for Williams’ minor daughter (identified as "K.W." in court documents), sued the believed owners and operators of the subject area, the city of Victorville, San Bernardino County and the state of California. Williams’ wife, Joel Williams, and minor son, Jaden Williams (by and through his guardian ad litem Diamond Slayton), were later added as plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleged that the subject area of the roadway constituted a dangerous condition of public property and that the defendants were negligent for failing to repair the roadway and/or warn of the dangerous condition. The city’s counsel filed a motion for summary judgment, but it was denied by the judge. The county and state were dismissed from the case, and the matter only continued against the city. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the city was aware of the dangerous conditions on Pebble Beach Drive at the Oro Grande Wash, as it was an area that had a history of flash flooding. Counsel also contended that the city had knowledge of the weather conditions and had ample advance notice of the likelihood of flash flooding, as well as local weather reports and National Weather Service warnings. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that despite all the advance warnings, the city failed to take action to barricade the location and/or prevent motorists from entering the area. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the Department of Public Works, the city department in charge of maintaining the streets in response to rainstorms, would occasionally place department employees on "Storm Duty" when it was concerned that a storm might be breaking over the city. Storm Duty involved clearing mud, leaves and/or debris out of storm drains, catch basins and drainage of channels to ensure that water is able to flow freely and to mitigate the potential for street flooding. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that weather advisories from the National Weather Service issued flash flood warnings as early as Feb. 15, 2017, two days before Mr. Williams’ death, and that the city activated Storm Duty the day before the incident, on Feb. 16, 2017. However, counsel contended that the department’s employees performed the usual maintenance activities in all the predesignated areas, except for the area of the waterway intersection of Pebble Beach Drive and the Oro Grande Wash. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the city had no explanation for the omission even though the subject area was a clear risk and had a known history of dangerous conditions. Defense counsel contended that the city knew Pebble Beach Drive was subject to flooding during heavy storms and that the city had posted "Subject to Flooding" signs for eastbound and westbound traffic on Pebble Beach Drive. Thus, counsel asserted that the city was not liable for the incident, as the subject roadway did not constitute a dangerous condition of public property. Defense counsel contended that, despite the roadway having existed for nearly 50 years, there were no known prior accidents on Pebble Beach Drive in which vehicles had been swept off the roadway by flood waters. Counsel also contended that the city properly maintained the location of the incident and that the city had proper "Subject to Flooding" signs in place, per the guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. The defense experts concluded that the subject storm was an unprecedented, 1,000-year storm event. Thus, defense counsel asserted that the city was entitled to the complete defense of design immunity and weather immunity. Defense counsel intended to introduce evidence about Williams being found to have phencyclidine (PCP) in his blood at the time of the incident, and asserted that Williams’ PCP intoxication was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Specifically, counsel asserted that despite the presence of moving water across the roadway, which was illuminated by a streetlight, and the posted "Subject to Flooding" sign, Williams made a bad decision and drove into the water, exposing himself to an avoidable hazard. According to the defense’s medical experts, Williams’ PCP-impaired perceptions prevented him from using the same due care that would have been exercised by a reasonably careful driver. The defense’s human factors expert also opined that the flooding conditions present on the night of the accident were perceivable and avoidable to an alert, attentive, and sober driver. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel denied that the presence of PCP in Williams’ system had any effect on his actions on the night of the incident. Counsel also asserted that although the city had posted "Subject to Flooding" signs for both eastbound and westbound traffic, it had previously closed Pebble Beach Drive when it became aware of flooding at that location, but that the city had not closed the roadway prior to the subject incident., Mr. Williams was not able to be rescued, and died from drowning. He was survived by a minor daughter, a minor son, and a wife. Williams’ family sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of a father and husband. They exclusively sought recovery of noneconomic damages for the loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support and guidance.