Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Association, Inc.
Filed March 26, 2008, Fifth District
Cite as 2008 SOS 1789

Judgment on Award of Damages Reversed

Plaintiff Ignacio Garcia (Garcia) is a Mexican citizen residing in California in violation of United States immigration laws.

Garcia met an automobile accident where he suffered serious injuries that will require long-term medical care. In a negligence action file by him against Paramount, he contended that the accident would not have occurred if Paramount had maintained warning signs on its private ranch road.

During the trial, Paramount sought to limit Garcia’s claims for future care to the costs of providing such care in Mexico. It pointed out that Garcia entered the United States illegally and is violating U.S. law by remaining here.

The trial court nonetheless set aside all evidence regarding Garcia’s immigration status and held that his future damages claims would be based solely on evidence regarding costs of life and medical care here in the United States.

The damages awarded to Garcia included $850,000 for future medical and healthcare expenses. A $1.64 million judgment was made in favor of Garcia and against Paramount hence, this appeal.

The California Court of Appeals reversed the grant of award based on the following grounds:

• Damages awarded are excessive under California law and pursuant to the case of Rodriguez v. Kline.


• Where traffic on a public road is not visible before a driver on a private road reaches the right-of-way of the public road, the owner of the private road is not required to post a stop sign or a warning to notify drivers on the private road that there is a road crossing ahead.”


• The award must be overturned because it serves as an obstacle to accomplishment of the objectives of federal immigration law. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that “when, as here, state law creates such an obstacle, it is preempted by federal law.”


• The award must be overturned because it is contrary to California public policy. California case law provides that “when, as here, an illegal alien has failed to demonstrate that (s) he has taken steps to legalize his/her status and thereby demonstrate that (s) he is likely to continue to live in the United States for the indefinite future, a court should not award damages that are premised on an assumption of continued residency in the United States.” (Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002) 535 U.S. 137)