Los Angeles County, CA — May 11, 2025, one person was killed and 32 were injured in a tour bus accident at approximately 5:00 a.m. along State Highway 60.

According to authorities, a tour bus with 63 occupants was traveling westbound on S.H. 60 at the Hacienda Boulevard exit when the accident took place.

Officials indicate that, for as yet unknown reasons, an SUV was stalled in the active lanes of the highway. Preliminary reports state that the rear-end of the stalled vehicle was struck by the tour bus. The impact reportedly caused the bus to swerve right, crossing multiple westbound lanes before striking a guardrail. The SUV caught on fire after the collision and was completely engulfed, according to reports.

The person who had been behind the wheel of the SUV apparently did not survive the wreck. Of the 32 people who had sustained injuries on the bus and were transported to medical facilities for care, two were reportedly in critical condition. Additional details pertaining to this incident—including the identities of the victims—are not available at this point in time. The investigation is currently ongoing.

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

Crashes involving stalled vehicles on highways are among the most challenging to assess—legally and practically—because they combine elements of unpredictability, speed, and visibility. But when a commercial passenger vehicle like a tour bus rear-ends a disabled SUV in the middle of the road, resulting in one death and dozens of injuries, the scope of the investigation must go far beyond simply asking why was the SUV there? From a legal standpoint, the critical question is whether the bus driver had the training, time, and opportunity to avoid a collision—and if not, why?

Tour bus drivers are held to the same professional standards as any other commercial operator, and those standards are especially high when passengers are involved. At 5:00 a.m., visibility is limited and fatigue may be a factor for any driver, but those risks are precisely why commercial drivers are expected to be alert and ready for sudden hazards. A vehicle stopped in a live lane is dangerous, no question—but if the bus driver didn’t react in time to avoid it, investigators have to ask whether speed, distraction, or inattention played a role.

Another issue that can’t be ignored is whether the stalled SUV was visible and whether the bus driver had a clear line of sight. Was the SUV using hazard lights? Were there other vehicles already swerving or slowing down, offering visual cues to the danger ahead? I've worked on cases where evidence—such as dash camera footage, headlight beam range, and skid mark analysis—revealed that a crash that looked "unavoidable" at first glance could have been prevented if the driver had recognized and responded to the hazard sooner.

And because this was a commercial bus carrying dozens of passengers, the bus company’s policies and training protocols must be reviewed. Was the driver adequately rested? Did the company provide sufficient training for nighttime and emergency driving? Were onboard safety systems, like lane monitoring or collision alerts, functional and properly maintained? In my experience, when a commercial vehicle with this many people on board is involved in a serious wreck, it's rarely just the last decision before impact that matters—it’s the systems, procedures, and training in place long before the trip even began.

Getting to the bottom of a crash like this means asking the right questions and refusing to stop at surface-level explanations. Serious wrecks deserve serious investigation, not assumptions. Understanding whether the collision could have been avoided, whether the driver was prepared for the conditions, and whether the company met its obligations is key to figuring out what might have happened. Getting clear answers to these questions is the least that can be done to help those affected find the clarity and closure they deserve.