LLAMAR YA
Accidente fatalSuspected DUIMay 18, 2026Eagles Nest Road and Woodring Drive, near Mather Golf Course, Sacramento County, CA

Mather DUI Crash Kills Two E-Motorcycle Riders Stopped at a Stop Sign

Two young e-motorcycle riders were killed and two more were injured on the evening of Monday, May 18, 2026, when a Nissan Titan pickup, reportedly traveling at a very high rate of speed with a suspected impaired driver at the wheel, slammed into four riders fully stopped at a stop sign near the Mather Golf Course. The 24-year-old driver was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on five felony counts, including two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

Resumen del incidente

Escribir
Pickup truck versus e-motorcycles, suspected DUI, two fatalities
Ubicación
Eagles Nest Road and Woodring Drive, near Mather Golf Course
Fecha
Monday, May 18, 2026
Hora
Approximately 9:17 p.m.
Vehículos
Nissan Titan pickup; four e-motorcycles stopped at a stop sign
Muertes
Two riders killed, approximately 20 years old (Myroslav Kulinich, 20, of Sacramento publicly named)
Lesiones
Two surviving riders transported to local hospitals
Suspect
Jihvon Jessenadea Thompson, 24
Charges
5 felony counts including 2 counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated
Agencia
California Highway Patrol, East Sacramento

What CHP and Local Reporting Say Happened

According to ABC10, CBS Sacramento, and Fox40, the collision happened at approximately 9:17 p.m. on Monday, May 18, 2026, at the intersection of Eagles Nest Road and Woodring Drive, just east of Sacramento in the Mather area. Four e-motorcycle riders had pulled up to a stop sign and were stationary at the intersection when a Nissan Titan pickup, driven by 24-year-old Jihvon Jessenadea Thompson, slammed into them. CHP investigators said the pickup was traveling at a very high rate of speed at the moment of impact and that alcohol impairment was suspected. Two of the four riders were pronounced dead at the scene. The other two were transported to local hospitals with injuries.

CHP East Sacramento worked the scene late into the night. Eagles Nest Road was shut down for several hours so investigators could photograph and measure the impact area, document vehicle positions, and conduct field sobriety and chemical testing. Thompson was taken into custody and booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on five felony counts, including two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Fox40 confirmed the booking and the charge sheet in a follow-up report citing CHP and the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office.

One of the deceased riders has been publicly identified by Sacramento media outlets as Myroslav Kulinich, 20, of Sacramento. The second deceased rider was also reported to be approximately 20 years old and had not been publicly named at the time of source reporting, pending family notification. The identities of the two surviving riders have not been released. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire and CHP confirmed the casualty count in successive on-scene statements.

The Riders Were Doing Everything Right

One detail in this crash deserves emphasis, because it shapes both the investigation and the civil case. The four riders were not weaving through traffic. They were not splitting lanes at speed. They were not running the stop sign. They were stopped, exactly where a stop sign told them to stop, at a controlled intersection. The impact came from behind, from a driver who, according to CHP, was traveling at a very high rate of speed and showed signs of impairment.

Electric motorcycles have become more common in the Sacramento metro area in recent years. When an e-motorcycle meets the California Vehicle Code definition of a motorcycle (a motor vehicle with a saddle for the rider, designed to travel on no more than three wheels, capable of speeds above 30 mph), it is subject to the same rules of the road, helmet requirements, and licensing standards as a conventional motorcycle. CHP's classification of the involved machines as e-motorcycles places this crash squarely in the motorcycle framework. CHP investigators said no fault was being attributed to the riders.

The Legal Picture: Two Wrongful Death Claims and Two Injury Claims

A single crash created four separate civil cases. Counsel for the families and for the surviving riders will need to move quickly to lock in evidence, identify every available source of insurance, and coordinate so that the four claims do not work against each other.

For the two deceased riders, California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 governs wrongful death actions. The statutory heirs of each rider, which can include surviving spouses, registered domestic partners, children, parents, and (in certain dependent-heir scenarios) siblings, can pursue compensation for lost financial support, lost household services, and the loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, society, attention, moral support, and guidance. For decedents around age 20, lifetime earnings models can be substantial, and forensic economists are often retained to project future losses across an entire working lifetime. A abogados especializados en casos de muerte injusta typically coordinates separate actions on behalf of each family so that allocation of any settlement is handled fairly.

The two surviving riders have personal injury claims separate from the wrongful death cases. Recoverable damages can include past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, loss of earning capacity, and pain and suffering. Where a survivor sustained orthopedic injuries, traumatic brain injury, or long-term disability, a life-care planner can help quantify lifetime costs. Counsel will also evaluate each survivor's own auto policy for medical-payments coverage and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, since those policies often pay first while the at-fault liability claim is negotiated.

DUI Civil Liability and Punitive Damages in California

Driving under the influence and causing a fatal crash is one of the most well-established factual scenarios for punitive damages in California civil practice. Civil Code section 3294 requires clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud, and DUI conduct has long been recognized by California courts as supporting punitive exposure when the impairment level and surrounding conduct reflect a conscious disregard for the safety of others. Felony charges including gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code section 191.5(a) signal that prosecutors view the conduct as well above ordinary negligence.

The threat of punitive damages also changes how insurers behave. Carriers know that punitive awards are typically not insurable in California, and that a jury that hears DUI facts can deliver a verdict that exceeds policy limits. Both realities create pressure on the insurer to settle the compensatory side of the case within available policy limits to avoid bad-faith exposure on top of an uncovered punitive judgment against the driver personally. Counsel for the families will typically signal punitive exposure early in the claim to put that pressure to work.

Investigators should also reconstruct the hours leading up to the crash. California's general rule under Civil Code section 1714 immunizes commercial alcohol providers from civil liability for serving an adult patron, but Business and Professions Code section 25602.1 carves out an exception when alcohol was served to an obviously intoxicated minor and that service was a proximate cause of the crash. While the named suspect here is 24, a careful investigation should still map the evening, identify any service location, document any group of co-drinkers, and evaluate possible social-host scenarios that may unlock additional liability paths. Families considering a drunk driving accident lawyer should ask specifically about that reconstruction.

What Investigators and Civil Attorneys Look For Next

In the days and weeks ahead, CHP East Sacramento will continue developing the official collision report. That report typically pulls together driver statements, witness interviews, scene measurements, photographs, vehicle inspections, and toxicology results. The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office will assess the chemical evidence and decide whether to add additional charges, such as DUI causing injury under Vehicle Code section 23153 or enhancements for great bodily injury.

On the civil side, the first priority is evidence preservation. Counsel for the families and surviving riders will often send formal preservation letters to the Nissan Titan's registered owner, to the driver, to any insurer involved, and to any establishment that may have served alcohol that evening. Those letters put recipients on notice that destroying or routinely overwriting receipts, surveillance video, telematics data, or text messages can carry serious legal consequences.

From there, the case can move into a discovery-heavy phase. Toxicology results, EMS run sheets, hospital records for the surviving riders, the autopsy reports for the two deceased riders, the suspect's driving history, any prior DUI contacts, the vehicle's event data recorder readout, and any nearby business or doorbell camera footage all become relevant. Families dealing with a fatal motorcycle crash often consult a abogado experto en accidentes de motocicleta early so that the technical and motorcycle-specific evidence is preserved correctly.

0.08%
is the per se blood alcohol limit for non-commercial drivers in California. Commercial drivers are limited to 0.04 percent, and drivers under 21 are subject to a 0.01 percent zero-tolerance threshold.
Source: California Vehicle Code sections 23152(b), 23152(d), and 23136
~24x
is roughly how much more likely motorcyclists are than passenger-vehicle occupants to die in a crash, measured per vehicle mile traveled, according to federal traffic safety data.
Source: NHTSA motorcycle fatality reporting
5 felony counts
were filed against the suspect, including two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under California Penal Code section 191.5(a).
Source: CHP and Sacramento County District Attorney's Office, per Fox40
2 años
is the general California statute of limitations for a wrongful death lawsuit. Shorter windows can apply when a public agency is a defendant, sometimes as little as six months for an administrative claim.
Source: California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1

Preguntas Frecuentes

Are e-motorcycles treated like motorcycles or like bicycles under California law?
It depends on the design. If the vehicle has a saddle, runs on a motor (electric or combustion), is designed to travel on no more than three wheels, and is capable of speeds above 30 mph, it generally meets the Vehicle Code definition of a motorcycle. Riders are then subject to motorcycle helmet rules, license endorsements, and insurance requirements. Lower-speed e-bikes that fall under the bicycle definition are treated differently. CHP classified the involved machines as e-motorcycles, which places them in the motorcycle framework.
Can the families recover punitive damages on top of compensatory damages?
Yes, in appropriate DUI cases. California Civil Code section 3294 allows punitive damages where clear and convincing evidence shows malice, oppression, or fraud. DUI fatalities have long been recognized as a category of conduct that can support punitive recovery, especially when blood alcohol levels are high, when the driver has prior DUI history, or when other reckless conduct (such as high speed) is documented.
What happens if the at-fault driver's auto insurance is not enough to cover all the damages?
California requires only modest minimum auto liability limits, which are often inadequate in a multi-fatality crash. The families and surviving riders should look at their own household uninsured and underinsured motorist policies, any umbrella coverage available on either side, and any employer-provided coverage if the at-fault driver was on the clock at the time of the crash. Counsel can also investigate whether the vehicle's registered owner is a separate insured party.
Does a felony DUI manslaughter conviction help the civil case?
Yes, often significantly. A felony conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, especially one entered by plea or guilty verdict, can carry collateral estoppel weight in the civil case. It can prevent the defendant from re-litigating liability and let the civil case focus on damages. Civil counsel will coordinate discovery with the criminal track without interfering with the prosecution.
What is the deadline to file a wrongful death lawsuit in California?
California generally allows two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death lawsuit. Different deadlines can apply when a government entity is involved, which can shorten the window to as little as six months for an administrative claim. Acting early protects every option and helps preserve evidence such as 911 calls, vehicle data, and witness statements.

Killed by a Drunk Driver in Sacramento County? Demand Full Accountability.

A DUI fatality is not just a criminal case for the District Attorney. It is also a civil case where families can pursue compensatory and punitive damages.

Request a Free Consultation

Free consultation. No fees unless we recover for you.