California Accident Attorneys Blog
Quick Answer: The husband of Regan Cole-Graham, a 36-year-old Google marketing executive who was seven months pregnant when a driver struck her e-bike in Playa del Rey on January 31, 2026, has announced plans to sue the City of Los Angeles for wrongful death. The family’s theory is that the city created a dangerous condition of public property when it installed bike lanes on Pershing Drive in 2017 and then tore them out months later. Under California Government Code § 835, a public entity can be held liable for a dangerous roadway condition it created or knew about, but the family must first file a government claim within six months and overcome the city’s “design immunity” defense. If you or a loved one was hurt riding a bicycle in Los Angeles, our Los Angeles bicycle accident lawyer has handled these claims for over 30 years and offers a free consultation at 866-966-5240.
Few stories in recent memory have shaken the Los Angeles cycling community the way this one has. On a Saturday evening at the end of January, a young family went out for a bike ride near their Playa del Rey home. Only part of that family came back.
Now, roughly seven months later, the surviving husband has gone public with a message that goes beyond grief: he believes the City of Los Angeles is responsible, and he intends to prove it in court. This article walks through what happened, why the family is pointing at the city rather than only the driver, and what California law actually requires when a cyclist is killed on a street the government designed.
What Happened on Pershing Drive
According to reporting from KTLA, the New York Post, FOX 11, and the Los Angeles Times, the collision occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. on January 31, 2026, near the intersection of Pershing Drive and Manchester Avenue in Playa del Rey, about two miles from the family’s home.
Regan Cole-Graham, 36, was riding an electric bicycle with her three-year-old son secured in a child seat. Her husband, Matthew Graham, a sportswriter, was riding alongside her on a second e-bike carrying their 18-month-old son. LAPD detectives told FOX 11 that an 87-year-old man driving a white Toyota Camry struck the rear of Cole-Graham’s bike, ejecting her onto the roadway. The vehicle then reportedly ran over her and pushed the bicycle forward with the toddler still strapped in.
Cole-Graham was pronounced dead. Because she was roughly 31 weeks pregnant, doctors performed an emergency delivery of her daughter, Ophelia Katherine Graham, who survived briefly in a neonatal intensive care unit before dying the following day. The three-year-old suffered minor injuries and is expected to recover. Matthew Graham and the younger child were physically unhurt.
Police said the driver remained at the scene and cooperated. Drugs and alcohol were ruled out as factors. As of this writing, no criminal charges have been filed against him.
Cole-Graham had worked at Google’s Los Angeles office since 2019, most recently as a brand partnerships lead, after earlier marketing roles at AT&T and DirecTV. A GoFundMe organized for the family raised well over $200,000, a memorial ghost bike was installed at the crash site, and a February memorial ride organized with LA Critical Mass drew hundreds of riders.
Why the Family Is Blaming the City, Not Just the Driver
On August 20, 2026, Matthew Graham gave his first extended interview to KTLA. Alongside his attorney, Brian Breiter, he announced that the family plans to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles.
The core of the claim is the history of Pershing Drive itself. In 2017, as part of a “road diet” safety project, the city reduced the number of vehicle travel lanes on Pershing and installed bike lanes, right where the crash later occurred. Within months, after intense opposition from motorists who used Pershing as a cut-through to avoid the 405, pressure from the local neighborhood council, and litigation from the group Keep LA Moving, the city removed the lanes and restored the roadway to its previous configuration.
Breiter’s position, as told to KTLA, is that stripping out that protected space was a critical factor in the deaths. The family’s argument is not simply that the street lacked a bike lane. It is that the city studied the corridor, concluded it needed a bike lane, built one, and then deliberately took it away, leaving cyclists in a mixed-traffic environment the city itself had determined was less safe.
How California Law Treats Dangerous Roads: Government Code § 835
Most bicycle injury claims in Los Angeles are brought against a private driver and that driver’s auto insurer. Claims against a city, county, or Caltrans are a different animal.
Under California Government Code § 835, a public entity is liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff proves four things:
- The property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury;
- The injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition;
- The dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred; and
- Either (a) a public employee’s negligent or wrongful act or omission created the condition, or (b) the entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition long enough before the injury to have taken protective measures.
A “dangerous condition” under Government Code § 830 means a condition that creates a substantial risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Courts have long held that a roadway’s design and configuration, not just physical defects like potholes, can qualify. The question in the Pershing Drive case will be whether a wide, high-speed roadway with no separation for cyclists on a known bike route constitutes a dangerous condition, and whether the 2017 removal of the lanes is the “act” that created it.
The family’s strongest fact is the city’s own conduct. When a public entity installs a safety feature after a study and then removes it, the plaintiff does not have to work hard to prove notice: the city’s records will show it knew the corridor presented a risk to cyclists. Our firm has litigated dangerous roadway and pothole claims against the City of Los Angeles on behalf of injured cyclists, and in our experience the notice element is where many of these cases are won or lost.
The City’s Likely Defense: Design Immunity
The city will almost certainly raise design immunity under Government Code § 830.6. This defense shields a public entity from liability for a roadway design that was approved in advance by a legislative body or authorized employee, provided there is substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of that approval.
Design immunity is powerful, but it is not absolute. Two issues will matter here.
First, design immunity protects a plan or design. The plaintiff can argue that the 2017 removal was not a considered engineering design at all but a political reversal made in response to motorist complaints and litigation. If the city cannot produce evidence that a qualified engineer independently approved the restored configuration as reasonably safe, the immunity may not attach.
Second, design immunity can be lost through changed conditions. Under Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, a public entity loses design immunity when it has actual or constructive notice that the design has become dangerous in practice because of changed physical conditions, and it had a reasonable time to remedy the problem. Crash history on Pershing after the lanes were removed, including a fatal hit-and-run on the same corridor in 2021 that advocates have pointed to, will be central to this argument.
These are technical, expert-heavy disputes. Winning them requires traffic engineering testimony, LADOT records obtained through discovery, and a detailed reconstruction of the collision. We explain how that evidence is assembled in our guide on how to prove fault in a bicycle accident in California.
The Six-Month Government Claim Deadline
There is a procedural point that every California cyclist and family should understand, because it derails more government cases than any substantive defense.
Under Government Code § 911.2, a claim for death or personal injury against a public entity must be presented in writing to that entity within six months of the incident. A lawsuit cannot be filed until the claim has been presented and either rejected or deemed rejected. Missing this deadline is generally fatal to the case, regardless of how strong the underlying facts are. This is far shorter than the two-year statute of limitations that applies to claims against private drivers under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.
For the Graham family, the collision occurred on January 31, 2026, so the six-month window closed at the end of July 2026. The August announcement that the family “plans to file a lawsuit” is consistent with a claim already having been presented and rejected, which is the normal sequence. Families reading this who lost someone in a crash on a public roadway should treat the six-month clock as the single most urgent item on their list.
Wrongful Death and the Legal Status of Ophelia
This case also raises a question that families rarely think about until it happens to them: can a wrongful death claim be brought for an unborn child?
Under California’s wrongful death statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, the action belongs to specified surviving family members of a “person” whose death was caused by the wrongful act of another. In Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19 Cal.3d 564, the California Supreme Court held that a fetus that is never born alive is not a “person” for purposes of the statute, so no separate wrongful death claim exists for a stillbirth caused by negligence. (The mother’s own injury claim, or her estate’s survival action, can still account for the loss of the pregnancy as an element of her damages.)
Here, however, Ophelia was delivered alive and survived in the NICU before dying the next day. Under California law, a child born alive who then dies from injuries sustained before birth is a “person,” and her parents and heirs may bring a wrongful death action in her name. That means the Graham family likely has two distinct wrongful death claims, one for Regan and one for Ophelia, in addition to any personal injury claim for the injured three-year-old and any survival claims brought by the estates.
Our Los Angeles wrongful death lawyer page explains which family members have standing and what damages are recoverable, including loss of financial support, loss of love, companionship, and guidance, and funeral expenses. Wrongful death damages in California do not include the survivors’ grief itself, only the value of the relationship that was lost, which is a distinction that matters greatly in how these cases are presented to a jury.
What About the 87-Year-Old Driver?
The decision not to file criminal charges does not end the civil analysis. A criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a culpable mental state, typically gross negligence for vehicular manslaughter. A civil negligence claim requires only a preponderance of the evidence that the driver failed to use reasonable care.
Striking a cyclist from behind on a straight roadway is, in most circumstances, strong evidence of driver negligence. California Vehicle Code § 21200 gives bicyclists the same rights and duties as drivers, and a motorist approaching a cyclist from the rear is obligated to see what is there to be seen and to leave adequate following distance and passing room. We discuss the mechanics of these crashes and the injuries they cause on our page on rear-end bicycle collisions in Los Angeles.
The driver’s age will also be examined. California does not have a mandatory license revocation age, but the DMV requires in-person renewal with vision and knowledge testing at age 70 and can order re-examination when a physician, law enforcement officer, or family member reports concerns. Breiter told reporters that he had reviewed footage of the crash and questioned why the driver was still behind the wheel. In a civil case, evidence that a driver had known visual, cognitive, or reaction-time impairments can support a finding of negligence, and can occasionally support claims against others who allowed the driver access to the vehicle.
It is common for a family in this situation to pursue both the driver and the public entity. The driver’s auto policy is typically the fastest source of compensation but is often limited, while the city has far greater resources but far stronger procedural defenses. A well-constructed case names every responsible party.
Comparative Fault and E-Bikes
Whenever a cyclist is killed, the defense looks for ways to shift blame. In California, comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 allows a jury to assign a percentage of responsibility to the injured person, reducing but not eliminating recovery.
Expect the city and the driver’s insurer to scrutinize the e-bikes. California classifies electric bicycles into three categories under Vehicle Code § 312.5. Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes are limited to 20 mph under motor power and may be ridden essentially anywhere a conventional bicycle can. Class 3 e-bikes reach 28 mph, require riders to be at least 16, and require helmets. Defense investigators will look at the class of bike, speed, lighting (the crash occurred around 6:00 p.m. in late January, near dusk), and how the child seats were installed.
Cyclists should understand that these arguments are routine and that a strong case anticipates them. Our Los Angeles electric bicycle accident attorney page covers the classification rules, helmet requirements, and the ways e-bike crashes differ from conventional bicycle claims, and our complete guide to California bicycle laws walks through the Vehicle Code provisions that govern riders and the drivers around them.
Why Bike Lane Removal Cases Matter Beyond Playa del Rey
Los Angeles has a documented pattern of installing and then reversing bike infrastructure under political pressure, and Pershing Drive is the best-known example. A significant civil judgment or settlement in the Cole-Graham case would send a clear message to LADOT and the City Council: removing a safety feature is not a cost-free political decision. That is, in the end, what Matthew Graham has said he wants. He told KTLA he is speaking publicly so that no other family has to go through what his has.
For cyclists, the practical lesson is that where you were riding matters to your legal claim. Crashes in or adjacent to a designated bike lane raise questions of driver encroachment under Vehicle Code § 21209, while crashes on streets where infrastructure was removed or never built raise the government liability issues discussed above. Our Los Angeles bicycle lane accident attorney page addresses the first category in detail.
The Injuries Cyclists Suffer, and What a Claim Is Worth
When a motor vehicle strikes a cyclist from behind at street speed, the injuries are frequently catastrophic: traumatic brain injury, spinal cord damage, pelvic and long-bone fractures, and internal injuries from being run over. Our page on bicycle accident injuries in Los Angeles describes how these injuries are diagnosed, treated, and valued in a claim.
Case value depends on liability, the severity and permanence of injury, the available insurance and public entity exposure, and the quality of the evidence. Families often ask what a claim like this is worth. There is no honest single number, and any lawyer who quotes one before investigating should be viewed with skepticism. For a realistic discussion of how California bicycle cases are valued, including the difference between claims against private drivers and claims against government entities, see our post on average bicycle accident settlement amounts in California. For guidance on evaluating law firms, including warning signs of high-volume settlement mills, see our review of the best bicycle accident lawyers in Los Angeles.
What Families Should Do After a Fatal Bicycle Crash
If you have lost a family member in a bicycle collision anywhere in Los Angeles or Southern California, the following steps protect your legal rights:
- Preserve everything. The bicycle, helmet, clothing, and any devices (bike computers, phones, e-bike controllers with speed logs) should be secured and not repaired or discarded.
- Identify camera sources immediately. Traffic cameras, Ring doorbells, business surveillance, and dash cams are frequently overwritten within days.
- Request the LAPD traffic collision report and any Vision Zero or LADOT records for the corridor. These are public records and establish notice.
- Calendar the six-month government claim deadline under Government Code § 911.2 if any public roadway condition may have contributed.
- Do not give a recorded statement to the driver’s insurer before speaking with counsel.
- Contact an attorney who has actually litigated against the City of Los Angeles. Government cases require different pleading, different experts, and a different timeline.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the City of Los Angeles if there was no bike lane where I was hit?
Possibly. The absence of a bike lane by itself is not automatically a dangerous condition, because many streets have no bike lanes and the city cannot be liable for every one of them. But where the city studied a corridor, installed a lane, and then removed it, or where crash history shows the city knew the street was dangerous for cyclists and failed to act, a claim under Government Code § 835 may be viable. Each case turns on the specific record for that street.
How long do I have to file a claim against the city after a bicycle death?
Six months from the date of the incident to present a written government claim under Government Code § 911.2. This is much shorter than the two-year deadline that applies to claims against private drivers. If the claim is rejected, you generally have six months from the rejection to file suit.
Can we bring a wrongful death claim for a baby who died after being born prematurely?
Yes, if the child was born alive. California does not recognize a separate wrongful death claim for a fetus that is never born alive (Justus v. Atchison), but a child who is born and then dies from injuries inflicted before birth is a “person” under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, and the parents may bring a wrongful death action.
Does the driver’s lack of criminal charges hurt our civil case?
No. Criminal and civil cases apply different standards of proof. A driver who is not charged with vehicular manslaughter can still be found negligent in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence. Rear-ending a cyclist is strong evidence of negligence regardless of the criminal outcome.
Can the family sue both the driver and the city?
Yes, and in most cases they should. The driver’s insurance policy and the city are separate sources of recovery, and under California’s joint and several liability rules for economic damages, each defendant can be held responsible for the full amount of economic loss regardless of its percentage of fault.
Talk to a Los Angeles Bicycle Accident Lawyer
Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC has represented injured cyclists and the families of those killed on Southern California roads for over 30 years, including claims against the City of Los Angeles and other public entities. We handle every case on a contingency fee basis: no fee unless we recover for you. Consultations are free and available in English and Spanish.
If you or a loved one was struck while riding a bicycle or e-bike in Los Angeles, call 866-966-5240 or visit our Los Angeles bicycle accident lawyer page to learn more about your rights.
Our thoughts are with the Graham family. This article discusses a pending matter based on publicly reported information and is provided for general educational purposes; it is not legal advice about any specific case, and our firm does not represent any party in the Cole-Graham matter.
Sources: KTLA (Aug. 20, 2026); New York Post / California Post (Aug. 21, 2026); FOX 11 Los Angeles; ABC7 Los Angeles; Los Angeles Times; BikinginLA; Streets Are For Everyone.