The Votes Are In!
2023 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → 
News Jan 26, 2022
A makeshift memorial outside the Staples Center a day after the crash that killed Kobe and Gianna Bryant along with Christine Mauser, Keri Altobelli, John Altobelli, and Alyssa Altobelli. | Photo by Amin Eshaiker via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
by
share with
On Wednesday’s second anniversary of the helicopter crash that took the lives of Kobe Bryant, his daughter and seven others, trial is nearing in a lawsuit brought by the NBA legend’s widow seeking millions of dollars in damages for the emotional distress she claims suffering after discovering that graphic photos of her loved ones’ remains were allegedly shared by Los Angeles County sheriff’s and fire department personnel.
Since private mediation efforts failed, attorneys for Vanessa Bryant and the county have submitted hundreds of pages of declarations, motions, proposed jury instructions and verdict forms over the past week alone. Trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 22 before U.S. District Judge John Walter.
County attorneys say it will be proven to a federal jury in downtown Los Angeles that no photos taken by personnel at the scene of the Jan. 26, 2020, hillside crash in Calabasas were ever shared with the public.
“The fact remains that the County did not cause Ms. Bryant’s loss and, as was promised on the day of the crash, none of the County’s accident site photos were ever publicly disseminated,” according to a lawyer for L.A. County. “The County did its job and looks forward to showing that at trial.”
In a declaration, Kobe Bryant’s widow said media reports of shared photos “caused me tremendous pain and distress.”
Bryant’s attorneys allege that close-up photos of the remains of the basketball star and his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna, were passed around on at least 28 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department devices and by at least a dozen firefighters in the hours after the accident.
“And that was only the beginning,” according to the plaintiff’s court papers. “The gratuitous sharing continued in the following days and weeks and included such outrageous conduct as flaunting the photos in a bar while pantomiming dismemberment and showing off the photos over cocktails at an awards gala.”
The county maintains that the digital images were never publicly disseminated in any fashion — so the widow’s claim of having to fear the photographs surfacing does not constitute grounds for her suit.
In its failed dismissal motion, the county argued that Bryant’s claim of emotional distress is based on “hypothetical harm” and thus lacks standing because the images were never publicly circulated and she never saw them.
Vanessa Bryant, 39, said she is infuriated “that the people I trusted to protect the dignity of my husband and daughter abused their positions to obtain souvenirs of their deaths, as though possessing pictures of their remains somehow makes them special. I imagine Kobe watching over what occurred at that crash scene, and I am overcome with anger and emotion,” according to her declaration.
In a court-ordered deposition, Sheriff Alex Villanueva said that taking and sharing such images was “wildly inappropriate” and “disgusting” and revealed efforts to “take away a trophy” from the scene of the deaths.
The widow contends that the county — through its sheriff’s and fire departments — violated her rights by taking and sharing photos of the crash site. One of her allegations is that Villanueva, in order to protect himself in the event of a lawsuit, ordered that evidence be deleted from the phones of deputies who may have possession of crash scene images.
In his deposition, Villanueva testified that he told his personnel to get rid of the photos in order to ensure the graphic images were not shared, which would cause additional harm to the suffering families of the victims, according to county attorneys.
The county maintains there’s no evidence that “death images” were shared within the sheriff’s or fire departments. When allegations of improper photo sharing surfaced, “they took appropriate action. Every action was aimed at preventing harm, not causing it,” defense documents state.
The county alleges that, contrary to the plaintiff’s claims, any photographs taken “did not focus on the remains of any of the victims but were general views of the crash scene that first responders and investigators typically use to assess the damage caused by tragic accidents such as this one.”
“None of the photographs were sent to anyone outside the county, nor were they publicly disseminated,” according to county attorneys.
The defense is expected to argue that Vanessa Bryant’s distress resulted from the loss of family members, not the photos, which Bryant has never seen and only learned about from newspaper reports.
