Corning, CA, October 17 – A three-vehicle crash on Highway 45 near Ord Bend killed two people on Friday afternoon, according to the California Highway Patrol. The collision began when a northbound Toyota Tacoma moved into the southbound lane to pass a Ford Ranger at the same moment the Ranger was changing lanes to pass a Chevrolet Volt. The Ranger was struck, overturned, and ejected its driver and passenger, who died. The Volt’s occupants were hospitalized with minor injuries.
Glenn County Crash Near Ord Bend on Highway 45 Kills Two
According to the California Highway Patrol, the crash happened around 2:34 p.m. A red 2016 Toyota Tacoma driven by a Corning woman was headed north behind a black 1996 Ford Ranger when the Tacoma moved into the southbound lane to pass it. At the same moment, the Ranger began shifting left to pass a black 2017 Chevrolet Volt driven by a Paradise man.
The Tacoma swerved left to avoid a collision and traveled along a gravel shoulder before returning to the roadway, where it struck the Ranger. The impact pushed the Ranger to the right and into the left side of the Volt. Both vehicles then left the east side of the road and went into an orchard, striking several trees. The Ranger overturned, ejecting its 72-year-old female driver and 68-year-old male passenger, who were killed.
The driver and passenger of the Volt sustained minor injuries in the crash and were taken to Enloe Health, one by air ambulance and the other by ground ambulance, according to the CHP. The driver of the Tacoma was able to regain control of the vehicle and brought it to a safe stop. The CHP did not report any injuries to that driver.
The California Highway Patrol is continuing to investigate the crash. The agency has not released the names of the driver and passenger who were killed, and it has not said whether either driver will face a citation. Beyond the sequence of events described by the CHP, further details about what caused the two vehicles to change lanes at the same time have not been made public.
What the at-fault driver is required to carry, and why it often is not enough
Vehicle Code section 16056 sets California’s minimum liability limits, and they changed recently. For a policy issued or renewed on or after 1 January 2025, the minimum is $30,000 for injury to or death of one person, $60,000 where two or more people are hurt, and $15,000 for property damage. Policies written before that date may still carry the older minimum of $15,000, $30,000 and $5,000.
Those are floors, not typical limits, and a single hospital admission can exhaust the lower figure before any other loss is counted. Where the at-fault driver carries the minimum, the uninsured and underinsured motorist cover on the injured person’s own policy is often the part that matters most, and it is worth checking early rather than after the other insurer has made an offer.
The deadline that applies to a claim like this one
Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 gives two years for an action for injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. The same two years covers an injury claim and a death claim; there is no separate, shorter period because someone died.
Who is entitled to bring a claim when someone is killed
Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 decides who may bring a wrongful death action. The first group is the surviving spouse, domestic partner, children and the issue of deceased children, or, where there is no surviving issue, whoever would take the estate by intestate succession.
A second group may bring the action only if they were financially dependent on the person who died: a putative spouse and their children, stepchildren, parents, and the legal guardians of the person who died where the parents are deceased. Parents are in that second group, which is the part families are most often surprised by, because dependency has to be shown rather than assumed.
If a public agency may be involved, the deadline is much shorter
Where a city, county, transit agency, school district or state agency is a potential defendant, Government Code section 911.2 requires a written claim to be presented to that entity within six months. The six months runs from when the claim accrues, and the claim is presented to the entity itself: a school district and a city are separate public entities with separate processes.
Two things follow that are easy to get wrong. The six months is the deadline to present the claim, not the deadline to sue, and it attaches to the public entity as a defendant rather than to the location of the crash, so a case with both a private and a public defendant is not entirely governed by it. Once the entity mails a written rejection, Government Code section 945.6 allows six months to file suit, which is shorter than the window that just closed. If no written rejection is ever sent, that period is two years from accrual.
Missing the six months is not automatically the end of it. Government Code section 911.6(b) requires the board to grant a late claim application on any of six grounds, including where the person was a minor, or was physically or mentally incapacitated, for the whole of the six months or for any part of it.
Talking to someone about it
Culver Legal represents people injured in collisions across California. A conversation about what happened costs nothing, and we work on a contingency fee, which means there is no fee unless we win. If we do not win, we do not pass the case costs on to you either.
Nothing on this page is legal advice about any particular case, and the facts of a reported collision often change as the investigation continues.
