Reseda Bus Collision: Why the First Impact Matters

By Nazaryan Law, APC | Published September 19, 2026

A three-vehicle collision in Reseda on September 18 raises an important evidence question: did an initial collision send a car into a stopped bus, and what caused that first impact? The answer can change which driver's conduct caused an injury. Being the vehicle that ultimately touched the bus does not, by itself, establish who started the chain of events.

What is confirmed about the Sherman Way collision?

LAFD's updated incident 0602 bulletin places the response at 18300 West Sherman Way at 9:47 a.m. on September 18. Its 10:48 a.m. update reports two cars and a Metro bus, seven patients assessed, six transported, and one who declined transport. It does not confirm patient conditions.

ABC7's report locates the collision near Etiwanda Avenue and attributes to Metro an account that the bus was stationary when a car from another collision hit its left rear. The reviewed sources do not establish the initial collision's cause or assign fault. This is a separate incident from the September 15 Chatsworth bus collision.

My Take: Artin Nazaryan, Esq.

Based on the publicly reported facts, I would investigate the first collision before drawing conclusions from the bus damage. There is not enough verified information yet for me to assign fault. The essential question is what each car was doing before contact, not simply which car ended up against the bus. A final resting position is one piece of evidence; it does not supply the missing approach sequence.

Who I would investigate first

I would seek the movements of both cars and the bus in one time sequence. Available onboard recordings, nearby business video, witness observations, and vehicle damage could help establish that sequence. I would want the moments before the first impact, not only a clip beginning after something went wrong. A witness who heard a collision and then turned around may describe the aftermath accurately without knowing what caused the first contact.

If reliable evidence shows one driver made an unsafe movement that forced the other car into the bus, I would examine a negligence claim against that initiating driver. If the other driver also made a causally important mistake, that would require a separate assessment. I would not treat the driver's involvement in the final impact as proof that the driver had an opportunity to prevent it.

The competing explanation I would test

A driver may contend that the car was pushed or redirected and that there was no meaningful chance to recover control. That explanation needs to fit the impact locations, timing, and available recordings. An insurer could instead argue that an earlier maneuver by that same driver contributed to the sequence. Neither position should win merely because it is repeated confidently. The useful question is which account fits the evidence that can be independently checked.

For the bus, the reported stationary position would be important if confirmed. It would not justify accusing the operator of a driving error without evidence. I would still preserve available transit records and examine any specific, supported concern rather than assume either liability or complete exoneration from a short news account.

What could change my view

A continuous recording showing the first impact would be more useful than speculation based on the largest vehicle in the scene. Conflicting timestamps, a missing camera angle, or different descriptions of the first contact could require reconstruction. I would address any potentially applicable public-entity procedure while that investigation continues. I would also evaluate each injured person's losses and available insurance separately. A shared collision does not mean identical injuries, identical claims, or a predictable settlement.

What must a negligence claim establish?

California Civil Code section 1714 provides the ordinary-care foundation for negligence responsibility. A claim needs evidence connecting the asserted failure to the injury, not merely proof that a collision occurred. In this incident, determining what caused the first impact and what caused the later injury are related but distinct questions.

Injured passengers or drivers may have claims against a person whose proven conduct caused their harm. The available reports do not establish whose conduct meets that standard. Vehicle ownership, employment, and other relationships should be investigated when actual records make them relevant, rather than assumed from the vehicles involved.

Does a bus passenger automatically recover from the transit agency?

No automatic liability follows from the location of an injury. Civil Code section 2100 imposes a demanding safe-carriage duty on a carrier transporting people for reward. A particular claim still requires facts supporting an actionable failure and its connection to the harm. An impact caused by another vehicle does not alone supply those facts.

Potential public-entity claims also have distinct procedures. Government Code section 911.2 generally requires presentation within six months after accrual for covered personal-injury, death, and personal-property claims. Accrual, exceptions, and potential relief need individual analysis. This article does not calculate anyone's deadline, and presenting a claim is different from filing a lawsuit.

Metro's current Legal Services page provides English and Spanish claim forms and says completed claims are accepted in person or by mail, while emailed claims will be rejected. Check the current instructions and keep delivery records. Do not assume a police report, a customer-service message, or an insurer conversation satisfies a formal claim requirement.

What records are useful before discussing settlement?

• Incident identifiers, original photographs, and available video, with information about who created each file.
• Witness accounts that distinguish firsthand observations from conclusions or things heard later.
• Medical, expense, and work-loss records specific to the person making the claim.
• Insurance correspondence, coverage information actually provided, and any proposed release.
• Copies of any public-entity claim, agency response, and proof of delivery.

Insurers may disagree about the collision sequence, injury causation, or available coverage. Those are different disputes. A reasoned response should identify the disputed issue and the evidence addressing it. If negotiations do not resolve material differences, litigation may involve document requests, witness testimony, and appropriate expert analysis. None of those steps establishes a particular outcome in advance.

Questions after the Reseda report

Does hospital transport prove a serious permanent injury? No. LAFD's reviewed update does not confirm medical conditions or long-term outcomes.

Should the driver nearest the bus be blamed first? The impact sequence must be established. Contact alone does not resolve negligent conduct or causation.

Can a lawyer review the matter before the investigation ends? An initial review can identify missing evidence and procedural questions without claiming the facts are already complete. To discuss your situation, contact Nazaryan Law, APC or call (818) 900-1888.

General California legal information and attorney advertising. Sources checked September 19, 2026. The firm does not claim to represent anyone involved or possess private investigative records. An inquiry does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes and coverage depend on the facts and applicable law.