Tucson sued over UA area hit and run deaths

For people walking between the University of Arizona campus, nearby apartments, and the bars and restaurants along Euclid Avenue, a lawsuit over last year’s fatal hit and run is also a challenge to Tucson’s approach to pedestrian safety. The families of three UA students killed while crossing Euclid Avenue at East Second Street are seeking damages from the alleged driver, Louis John Artal, and the City of Tucson. They claim the city knew the crosswalk was dangerous, received repeated warnings, and did not install safety measures before the crash.

Josiah Santos, 22, Sophia Troetel, 21, and Katya Castillo Mendoza, 21, were struck late on Oct. 30, 2025. The students were crossing the street near campus when, according to police and the lawsuit, Artal hit them and left the scene. Police said Artal fled in a Porsche before turning himself in hours later. He was 19 at the time and was also a UA student. He faces criminal charges connected to the deaths, while the civil case will address financial damages and alleged responsibility for the conditions at the intersection.

The complaint was filed Wednesday, about a year after the crash, after the families previously submitted a notice of claim against the city in April. It brings wrongful death, negligence, and survival claims against Tucson. The families are asking for compensation connected to the students’ deaths, including expenses and damages to their estates and statutory beneficiaries. The complaint does not identify a specific total in one account, but another report says each family is seeking $50 million, for a combined request of $150 million. The filing also seeks punitive damages against Artal.

A central argument is that the Euclid and Second Street crossing was hazardous well before the students were killed. The lawsuit describes the intersection as part of a dense university corridor used heavily by students, faculty, visitors, drivers, and pedestrians throughout the day and night. The families say the concentration of bars and restaurants increased the risk of impaired driving, while the large number of people crossing made stronger protections necessary.

The complaint says Tucson had several opportunities to improve the crossing but delayed action. Before 2022, the intersection reportedly ranked 12th on the city’s priority list for a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk beacon, commonly called a HAWK signal. The lawsuit alleges that the city did not provide funding or complete safety resolutions, and that it also failed to add other possible protections, including a traffic signal, stop signs, a pedestrian refuge island, or a raised median.

The families’ attorneys point to traffic and pedestrian figures as evidence that the intersection needed more than a marked crosswalk. Counts cited in the lawsuit recorded more than 28,000 vehicles on Euclid during a two-day period and more than 700 pedestrians crossing each day. The complaint says federal pedestrian safety guidance identifies multilane roads carrying more than 12,000 vehicles daily as presenting elevated risks when enhanced crossing controls are absent.

The filing also describes a history of warnings about visibility and damaged signs. According to the complaint, vehicles had repeatedly struck pedestrian crossing signs at the intersection. A University of Arizona employee reported in October 2022 that lighting was inadequate at all four corners, particularly at night, making pedestrians difficult to see. The lawsuit says further complaints were made in 2023 and 2025. It alleges that physical safety improvements were not installed until after the three students died.

The allegations against Artal are separate from the claims against the city. The families accuse him of driving recklessly, at excessive speed, and while impaired through a marked crosswalk at night, then leaving the injured students in the roadway. Those claims are part of the civil case, while the criminal proceedings will determine the charges against him. The lawsuit describes his conduct as intentional or egregious enough to justify punitive damages, but those are allegations that remain to be resolved.

The City of Tucson has said it cannot comment while the litigation is pending. The families’ attorneys had not responded to requests for comment in the reporting. The lawsuit now places both the city’s pre-crash safety decisions and the driver’s alleged conduct before the court. For Tucson residents who regularly cross Euclid near campus, the case may also draw renewed attention to whether marked crosswalks are sufficient on busy, multilane streets and how quickly the city responds when residents and university personnel report dangerous conditions.