Chatsworth Metro Bus Crash: Evidence and Public-Entity Claims

By Nazaryan Law, APC | Published September 16, 2026 | Updated September 29, 2026

The September 15 collision involving a Metro bus and another vehicle at Nordhoff Street and De Soto Avenue in Chatsworth raises two separate questions: what evidence will establish responsibility, and what procedures apply if the investigation supports a claim against a public transit agency? A bus's involvement does not answer the first question, but it makes the second important to investigate promptly.

What has been reported?

Update, September 29, 2026: The driver entered a not-guilty plea at the September 24 arraignment, according to the San Fernando Valley Sun's courtroom report and City News Service reporting carried by KOST. This updates the earlier postponement reports retained below. We have not retrieved a court minute order. The plea is a procedural development, not a finding of guilt, and the criminal allegations remain unproven. It does not decide civil fault or insurance coverage.

Update, September 22, 2026: The arraignment was postponed again on September 21, according to City News Service reporting carried by MyNewsLA and FOX 11 reporting carried by AOL. This supersedes the anticipated September 21 appearance described below. The cited reports do not establish a completed plea hearing. We have not retrieved a court minute order and are not announcing a replacement hearing date. The criminal charges remain allegations; a scheduling delay does not establish civil fault or insurance coverage.

Update, September 19, 2026: FOX 11 and NBC Los Angeles report that the September 18 arraignment was postponed until Monday, September 21, and that no plea was entered. This procedural update is attributed to their court reporting; we have not retrieved a court minute order. The pending charges remain allegations, and the postponement does not decide guilt, civil responsibility, or insurance coverage.

Update, September 18, 2026: The District Attorney's September 17 release confirms charges in case 26SFCF01880: two murder counts, a felony drug-impaired-driving count involving injury, and a misdemeanor reckless-driving count. Prosecutors allege speeding, wrong-way travel, and a red-light violation before the bus collision. These are allegations, not findings of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Associated Press reporting carried by KPBS independently confirms the charging announcement. The release schedules arraignment for September 18; this update does not report an arraignment result.

The release reports two deaths and at least five other people injured, and separately describes the SUV driver's hospital transport. Earlier LAFD reporting counted eight patients, including two deaths and six transports. We preserve the distinct sources and categories rather than assume each count describes the same group. The criminal filing does not by itself determine civil liability or insurance coverage.

Correction and update, September 16, 2026: Current September 16 reports from NBC Los Angeles and FOX 11 state that two people died and six were injured. An earlier version of this article described a Metro statement reproduced in FOX 11's earlier story that reported three deaths. That older story retains conflicting counts. We have revised this article to reflect the newer reporting.

LAFD's initial casualty update for the 5:03 p.m. response at 20900 W Nordhoff Street reported eight patients, six transported, and two deceased. The identifiers are LAFD incident 1299 and LAPD incident 3660.

NBC Los Angeles reports, attributing its account to LAPD, that the SUV driver was arrested on suspicion of murder and that the SUV traveled the wrong way and ran a red light before the collision. FOX 11's September 16 report also reports the arrest and the current two-death count. An arrest and reported police allegations are not a conviction or a final determination of civil responsibility.

FOX 11 describes a Line 166 bus traveling east on Nordhoff and the SUV traveling south on De Soto. The reviewed reports do not establish every surviving patient's current medical outcome. The separate helicopter incident later that evening is not part of this collision's casualty count.

My Take: Artin Nazaryan, Esq.

Based on the police account and the District Attorney's September 17 allegations, my initial focus would be the SUV's approach and compliance with the traffic signal. If recordings, witnesses, and vehicle data confirm the reported wrong-way travel and red-light violation, that evidence would support investigating a claim against the SUV driver. I would still test the account against the evidence rather than treat an arrest or criminal charge as a final civil finding. I would also examine whether either driver had an opportunity to avoid the collision.

What I would preserve first

I would promptly seek preservation of any available onboard video, nearby recordings, vehicle data, and records identifying the bus and its operator. I would not assume that every camera recorded the relevant angle or that a complete recording still exists. A passenger who saw the other vehicle approaching may provide different information from someone who experienced the impact without seeing the approach. Both accounts can matter, but they answer different questions.

Who I would investigate, and why

If reliable evidence establishes unsafe conduct by the other driver that caused the collision, I would examine the injured occupants' claims against that driver. If evidence also establishes that the bus operator's conduct contributed, I would evaluate that conduct, the operator's employment relationship, and the legal basis for an agency claim. I would not name a public entity simply because it may have more resources. There must be a supported liability theory.

The strongest competing explanation could be that the other vehicle entered unexpectedly and the bus operator could not reasonably prevent the impact. That defense should be tested against the actual approach sequence, sight lines, and available reaction time. Conversely, a claim that a driver had time to avoid the collision should be supported by evidence rather than hindsight. Serious consequences do not fill a gap in the proof.

What I would handle while the evidence is developing

I would address potential public-entity claim requirements while investigating responsibility. Waiting for a final police report before examining those requirements can create avoidable procedural problems. Preserving a possible claim does not mean the agency is responsible, and presenting a claim is different from filing a lawsuit.

I would also separate each person's losses and applicable coverage from the fault analysis. Multiple injured occupants do not necessarily have identical claims or access to separate insurance limits. Before recommending a resolution, I would want the relevant records, the potentially responsible parties, and the effect of any proposed release understood. If material factual disputes remain, targeted discovery and reconstruction may be needed rather than a premature settlement prediction.

Does a Metro passenger automatically have a claim against Metro?

No automatic finding follows from being injured on a bus. Civil Code section 2100 imposes a demanding safe-carriage duty on carriers of persons for reward. Applying that duty still requires the actual facts and a connection between the asserted failure and the injury. It is not a guarantee that a carrier is liable whenever another vehicle collides with a bus.

Government Code section 815.2 addresses a public entity's responsibility for qualifying employee conduct within the scope of employment and recognizes employee-immunity limitations. Employment, scope, causation, and applicable defenses require investigation. This article does not establish those facts for either driver.

Why are the public-entity procedures time-sensitive?

For claims subject to California's Government Claims Act, Government Code section 911.2 generally requires presentation of claims involving death, personal injury, or personal-property injury within six months after accrual. Accrual, exceptions, and possible relief require individual analysis. This is not a calculation of anyone's deadline.

Section 945.4 generally requires a written claim and agency action or deemed rejection before a covered damages lawsuit, subject to its statutory exceptions. A claim-presentation deadline and a later lawsuit deadline are different. A police report, an ordinary complaint, or an insurance conversation should not be assumed to satisfy the required procedure.

Where does Metro publish its claim instructions?

Metro's Legal Services page links its English and Spanish Claims for Damages forms. As checked September 18, 2026, it says completed forms are accepted in person or by mail and warns that emailed claims will be rejected. Its listed email for questions should not be mistaken for permission to present a claim by email. Verify the current form, recipient, and delivery requirements, and retain proof of submission.

What records help an initial review?

• Incident identifiers, the location and time, and any known bus or route information.
• Original recordings, photographs, and witness details, including what each witness actually observed.
• Available treatment and work-loss records, insurance correspondence, and proposed releases.
• Copies of any agency claim, rejection notice, and proof of delivery.

To discuss the available evidence and next steps, contact Nazaryan Law, APC or call (818) 900-1888. Our intersection-evidence analysis also explains why the approach sequence matters.

General California legal information and attorney advertising. Latest procedural sources checked September 22, 2026; earlier reporting checked September 18, 2026. The firm does not assert representation of anyone involved or access to private investigative records. An inquiry does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no outcome is guaranteed.