Driver Detained Following Fatal Hit-and-Run in Modesto

What Happened on S. 9th Street Near Hatch Road

Shortly after 9:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 24, 2024, Modesto officers responded to a reported collision on S. 9th Street near Hatch Road, a stretch of road in the southern portion of Modesto that runs adjacent to the Highway 99 corridor. When officers arrived, they found an unidentified male pedestrian lying injured on the roadway. Medics responded but were unable to save the victim, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.

While officers were working the collision site, a sedan was spotted in the vicinity of the injured man. The vehicle attempted to enter Highway 99 before officers could intercept it. When law enforcement caught up with the driver, they noted significant front-end damage to the car — damage consistent with having struck a pedestrian. The driver was identified as 22-year-old Jasneal Hayer, a local resident.

Based on their investigation, officers arrested Hayer on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, hit-and-run resulting in death, and vehicular manslaughter. The stretch of S. 9th Street in the area of the crash was closed to traffic as investigators processed the scene, gathering physical evidence, documenting the roadway, and working to reconstruct the sequence of events.

S. 9th Street in the vicinity of Hatch Road is a mixed-use corridor south of central Modesto, running near commercial properties, residential neighborhoods, and freeway access points. The area generates a range of pedestrian activity, particularly in evening hours, and is the kind of stretch where a driver impaired by alcohol or drugs may fail to perceive or react to a person on or near the roadway in time to avoid a collision.

The pedestrian’s identity had not been publicly released as of initial reports. The Modesto Police Department was responsible for the investigation, and criminal charges were pending formal review by the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s office.

Criminal Charges: What Hayer Faces Under California Law

The three charges Hayer faced carry serious potential consequences under California criminal statutes. Understanding those charges provides important context for the civil liability that the victim’s family may also pursue simultaneously.

Driving Under the Influence (Vehicle Code Section 23152). DUI charges in California arise when a person drives while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both, or when a driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) measures 0.08% or higher. At the time of arrest, officers would have performed field sobriety tests and ultimately obtained a chemical test — blood or breath — to measure Hayer’s BAC or detect the presence of controlled substances. The results of that test would inform the precise DUI charge filed.

Hit-and-Run Resulting in Death (Vehicle Code Section 20001). California law requires any driver involved in a collision that results in injury or death to immediately stop at or near the scene, render reasonable assistance, and provide their contact and insurance information to investigating officers. Fleeing the scene of a fatal collision is a felony under Vehicle Code Section 20001, carrying potential state prison time. In Hayer’s case, attempting to access Highway 99 before being intercepted supports the element of intentional flight.

Vehicular Manslaughter (Penal Code Section 192(c)). Vehicular manslaughter covers the unlawful killing of a person during the operation of a vehicle where the driver acted with criminal negligence or in the commission of an unlawful act. Where gross negligence is alleged — such as driving while heavily intoxicated — the charge escalates under Penal Code Section 191.5, which carries a sentencing range of four to ten years in state prison. If the conduct involved ordinary negligence rather than gross negligence, the maximum exposure is lower, though still significant.

It should be noted that criminal proceedings and civil proceedings are separate. A criminal conviction is not required for the family to pursue a civil wrongful death claim. Nor does a not-guilty verdict in a criminal case prevent the family from prevailing in civil court — the civil standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) is considerably lower than the criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Civil Liability: Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages in DUI Cases

When a pedestrian is killed by a DUI driver, the family’s civil case carries substantially greater potential than an ordinary negligence claim. California law provides for punitive damages in civil cases involving conduct that is malicious, oppressive, or that shows a conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others — and California courts have consistently held that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs with knowledge of the associated risks meets that standard.

The leading case establishing this principle in California is Taylor v. Superior Court (1979), in which the California Supreme Court held that a person who drives while intoxicated may be found to have acted in conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences to others, supporting an award of punitive damages. Subsequent cases have reaffirmed this principle, and the combination of DUI with a deliberate decision to flee the scene — as alleged here — presents an even stronger basis for a punitive damages claim.

Punitive damages in California are governed by Civil Code Section 3294. They are separate from and in addition to compensatory damages, and their purpose is to punish the defendant for egregious misconduct and deter similar conduct by others. While compensatory damages restore the family financially for what they lost, punitive damages reflect the degree of moral culpability involved. In a case where a driver chose to flee after striking and killing a person, the argument for punitive damages is particularly compelling.

Dram Shop Liability in California: What the Law Actually Allows

When a drunk driver causes a fatal crash, one of the natural questions is whether whoever provided the alcohol to that driver can be held legally responsible. This area of law — commonly referred to as Dram Shop liability — is more limited in California than in many other states, and understanding its actual scope is important for any family considering their legal options.

California Business and Professions Code Section 25602 generally provides that commercial alcohol providers — bars, restaurants, nightclubs, liquor stores — are not liable in civil damages for injuries caused by an adult customer to whom they served alcohol, even if that customer was visibly intoxicated at the time of service. This represents a deliberate legislative choice to limit Dram Shop liability for adult patrons, and it has been consistently upheld by California courts.

There is, however, a significant exception codified in Business and Professions Code Section 25602.1. That provision creates civil liability for a licensed alcohol provider who sells, furnishes, or gives alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated minor — that is, a person under the age of 21 — and that intoxication proximately caused the death or injury of a third person. In the Modesto case, Hayer was reported to be 22 years old. If that is accurate, the minor exception would not apply, and a commercial Dram Shop claim would face significant legal obstacles under California law.

It is worth noting that social host liability in California is even more restricted. Under the same statutory framework, a private individual who serves alcohol to another adult at a party or gathering generally cannot be held civilly liable for injuries that adult later causes. The law places the responsibility on the driver who chose to consume alcohol and get behind the wheel.

The practical takeaway is that in California DUI cases involving adult drivers, civil recovery is most directly pursued against the driver — and through insurance coverage, discussed below — rather than through Dram Shop claims. An experienced attorney can evaluate whether any exceptions apply based on the specific facts of a case.

Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage in Hit-and-Run Cases

Hit-and-run cases present a particular challenge in the insurance context, and understanding how UM/UIM coverage works is essential for families who have lost someone in this type of crash.

Uninsured motorist (UM) coverage is a component of an automobile insurance policy that provides compensation to an insured person who is injured — or whose family member is killed — by a driver who either has no insurance or cannot be identified. In California, UM coverage is required to be offered by every auto insurer, and it applies specifically to hit-and-run collisions where the at-fault driver fled the scene. This is one of the most important practical protections available to pedestrian victims and their families in situations where a driver initially flees.

In the Modesto case, Hayer was ultimately apprehended, which means his identity is known and his insurance — if any — can be located. However, many DUI drivers, particularly younger drivers, carry only the minimum required insurance in California. As of 2024, California’s minimum liability limits are $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident under the existing framework — amounts that are entirely inadequate to cover the full scope of damages in a fatal collision.

When the at-fault driver’s liability insurance is insufficient to cover the full value of the family’s losses, the family may turn to their own underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. UIM coverage supplements the at-fault driver’s policy when that policy is not enough. Importantly, UM/UIM coverage extends to family members and in some cases to pedestrians covered under a household policy.

Navigating UM/UIM claims can be complex, particularly in cases involving a concurrent wrongful death lawsuit against the at-fault driver. An insurance carrier may attempt to offset UM/UIM payments against any recovery from the driver, and coordinating multiple insurance claims requires careful legal strategy. Families should retain counsel before submitting formal UM/UIM claims in order to protect the full value of all available recovery.

The Hit-and-Run Element: Why It Matters Legally and Morally

The decision to flee the scene of a collision — particularly one where a person is lying injured or dead on the roadway — is treated with particular severity in both criminal and civil law, and for good reason. A driver who flees denies emergency responders the opportunity to receive an immediate call, denies the injured person potentially life-saving minutes of medical attention, and destroys or attempts to conceal evidence of the crash.

In criminal law, Vehicle Code Section 20001 makes hit-and-run resulting in death a felony carrying a sentence of up to four years in state prison, in addition to any vehicular manslaughter sentence. Courts can impose consecutive sentences, meaning the hit-and-run charge is additive rather than merged into the manslaughter charge.

In civil law, the deliberate decision to flee the scene is among the strongest available facts supporting a punitive damages claim. It is not merely an act of negligence — it is a willful act taken after the crash. A jury presented with evidence that a driver, having struck a person and knowing that person was on the road, chose to attempt escape rather than stop and help, is likely to view that conduct as precisely the kind of conscious disregard for human life that justifies punitive damages under California Civil Code Section 3294.

The fact that Hayer’s sedan showed front-end damage consistent with striking a pedestrian, and that he was attempting to access a freeway rather than remain at the scene, will be relevant to both the criminal prosecution and any civil case the family pursues. This physical evidence, combined with witness accounts and the results of any chemical DUI testing, will form the evidentiary foundation for both proceedings.

What the Victim’s Family Should Know and Do

When a family loses someone in a DUI hit-and-run collision, the combination of grief, shock, and sudden financial pressure can make it difficult to know where to begin. The following information is intended to help families understand their rights and protect their legal position during the critical period following the crash.

Criminal and civil cases proceed separately. The Stanislaus County District Attorney’s office will handle the criminal prosecution of Hayer. The family has no direct control over that process, but they may be entitled to participate as victims through the criminal justice system. Separately, the family has the right to file a civil wrongful death lawsuit regardless of how the criminal case is resolved or when it concludes.

Identify all available insurance. Hayer’s automobile insurance — if any — represents the primary source of civil recovery. However, the family should also review any UM/UIM coverage available through their own automobile insurance policies. An attorney can assist in identifying and evaluating all potentially applicable coverage.

Do not give recorded statements to any insurance company without legal advice. Insurance adjusters representing the at-fault driver’s carrier may contact the family quickly. Their goal is to minimize the insurer’s exposure. Nothing should be said, signed, or agreed to without first consulting with a wrongful death attorney.

Preserve all documentation. Medical records, death certificate, funeral expenses, any correspondence from insurers, and any financial records showing the victim’s earnings and contributions to the household should all be preserved. These are the building blocks of the economic damages component of the wrongful death claim.

Act within the statute of limitations. California’s statute of limitations for wrongful death claims is generally two years from the date of death under Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. While two years may seem like ample time, investigations take time and the legal process has a long lead time. Contacting an attorney promptly protects the family’s rights and allows for early evidence preservation.

How Scranton Law Firm Handles DUI Wrongful Death Cases

Scranton Law Firm has represented the families of pedestrians and other victims killed by drunk drivers across California for more than 50 years. Our attorneys understand the unique legal dimensions of DUI wrongful death cases — including the pursuit of punitive damages, the coordination of criminal and civil proceedings, and the navigation of UM/UIM insurance claims when an at-fault driver is underinsured.

We handle wrongful death cases on a contingency fee basis. There are no upfront costs and no attorney fees unless we obtain a recovery for our clients. For a family already dealing with the financial impact of a sudden loss, this structure ensures that experienced legal representation is accessible regardless of the family’s immediate financial circumstances.

Our firm has recovered more than $1 billion for clients over more than five decades of practice. We understand that no amount of money can replace a person, but we also know that financial accountability — including the pursuit of punitive damages where the evidence supports it — can provide a measure of justice and help protect the family’s long-term security.

If your family was affected by the November 24, 2024 hit-and-run on S. 9th Street in Modesto, or by any DUI crash resulting in serious injury or death in Stanislaus County or elsewhere in the Central Valley, we encourage you to contact us for a free, confidential consultation.