Family Files Lawsuit Blaming Emergency Alert Software for Fire Death

Attorneys representing the family of Stacey Darden, a resident of Altadena who lost her life in the Eaton fire, filed a wrongful death lawsuit on January 8, 2024. The complaint alleges that the emergency alert software utilized by Los Angeles County was defective and failed to provide timely evacuation notifications, which could have saved her life. This lawsuit emerges over ten months after the devastating fire that engulfed the Altadena area.

The lawsuit specifically targets Genasys, the company responsible for the emergency alert system, arguing that its predefined evacuation zones, referred to as “polygons,” prevented timely alerts from reaching residents on the east side of Lake Avenue during the fire. While the lawsuit also implicates Southern California Edison for allegedly igniting the fire, it stands out as one of the first to examine the deficiencies in the alert system that left many residents uninformed.

Geraldine “Gerry” Darden, Stacey’s sister, emphasized the family’s careful consideration before pursuing legal action against Genasys. She stated, “Edison started this fire, and Genasys never warned her that she was in danger. My sister was studiously following the evacuation orders the night of the Eaton Fire. The truth is that if these companies had done what they were supposed to do, Stacey would be alive today.”

On the evening of January 7, 2023, Los Angeles emergency officials struggled to manage multiple fires ignited by severe red flag conditions across the region. The flames erupted near Eaton Canyon around 18:30, fueled by powerful winds that carried embers for miles, ultimately destroying thousands of homes and resulting in the deaths of nineteen people in Altadena.

Following the fire, reports indicated that residents in west Altadena received electronic evacuation orders hours after the fire began, with alerts not reaching them until around 03:30 on January 8, 2023. In contrast, those living east of Lake Avenue received alerts at least six hours earlier. Doug Boxer, an attorney with LA Fire Justice, noted that Stacey Darden and her sister were closely monitoring news updates about evacuation zones. According to the lawsuit, Darden’s home, located at 2528 Marengo Ave., was not included in the evacuation order zone. The only alert received on her cellphone did not arrive until 05:43 on January 8, well after the fire had already taken its toll.

Attorney Mikal Watts commented on the implications of this delayed alert, stating, “By the time an evacuation order was finally pushed to her phone, it was too late. This is not a tragedy of bad luck; this is a tragedy of corporate failures.” He further described the situation as a “digital redlining,” alluding to Lake Avenue’s historical role as a boundary for racial inequities in Altadena.

The lawsuit aims to address unanswered questions regarding the delay of alerts for residents west of Lake Avenue, a topic of concern that has gained traction among community groups advocating for better emergency response systems. The complaint accuses Genasys of failing to provide a safe and effective notification system, which was crucial for timely evacuations, particularly for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those with health issues.

A state report has previously highlighted challenges faced by senior care facilities during the emergency, revealing their inability to evacuate all residents promptly. Despite the mounting scrutiny, officials with Genasys have maintained that their software did not malfunction during the Eaton fire. In a March meeting, Richard Danforth, Genasys’ chief executive, asserted that the system was operational at the time of the fire.

According to an after-action report from the McChrystal Group, most issues related to the alerts during the Eaton fire were attributed to human error rather than technological failures. The report indicated that Genasys’ software was relatively new to Los Angeles County, with limited staff trained to operate it before the fires erupted.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the Darden family’s case highlights critical flaws in emergency communication systems and raises important questions about the responsibilities of technology providers in safeguarding lives during natural disasters.