Robert Knox Thomas, the driver who ran over two pedestrians with his Rolls-Royce SUV and crashed into a restaurant in downtown Napa in November 2024, is launching his own legal battle to contest allegations he is to blame for the devastating crash.
The two injured women, one of whom was paralyzed, sued Thomas last year, accusing him of acting with “rage, aggression, and a deliberate disregard for human life” when he was behind the wheel that day, four days before Thanksgiving.
Now Thomas, 79, is suing Rolls-Royce and three other automotive companies, arguing it is they who bear the responsibility for any potential damages.
In the moments leading up to the crash, Thomas claims, his Cullinan SUV “accelerated on its own despite (his) attempt to stop the vehicle,” striking the two women before crashing into the restaurant building, according to his cross-complaint, filed Nov. 20 in Napa County Superior Court.
Named as cross-defendants along with Rolls-Royce Motor Cars are Holman Motor Cars, which sold Thomas the Cullinan; and Rolls-Royce Los Gatos and Wheels Boutique, two companies that performed modifications, maintenance and/or repair on the vehicle.
Rolls-Royce filed its answer Jan. 8, denying “each and every allegation” in Thomas’ cross-complaint.
The Los Angeles-based attorneys for the auto maker argue that Thomas’ Cullinan met prevailing manufacturing standards, and “comported with all applicable government regulations, rules, orders, codes and statutes,” including the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Rolls-Royce demanded a jury trial to settle the matter.
After investigating the crash, the Napa Police Department’s Reconstruction Team determined that Thomas “caused the vehicle to accelerate, believing he was trying to stop the vehicle,” the department divulged last July. He was cited for three traffic violations, processed as citations rather than criminal charges.
Thomas was making a right turn onto First Street from a stop sign at School Street on that busy Sunday when the Rolls-Royce accelerated at high speed and barreled over the two friends, Annamarie Thammala and Veronnica Pansanouck, as they were stepping onto the far sidewalk. Thomas then crashed into Tarla Mediterranean Bar & Grill, damaging the restaurant’s exterior.
Thammala, then 29, was thrown into the air and crushed beneath a tree that had been severed by the vehicle, according to the women’s lawsuit. She suffered multiple fractures, including spinal injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist down. Pansanouck, 31, wound up pinned underneath the vehicle; she sustained multiple spinal fractures in her back and legs, requiring several surgeries.
Both women will require “lifelong medical care,” according to a press release distributed in mid-October by Habbas & Associates, the South Bay law firm representing them. They are seeking unspecified monetary damages.
Pansanouck’s sisters, Erica Kalah and Colicia Pansanouk — Veronnica and Colicia spell their last names differently — were crossing the street at the same time. They also are plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Thomas, alleging they suffered severe emotional trauma in witnessing the incident.
Thomas sustained physical injuries and endured emotional distress of his own, he alleges, as a result of the automotive companies’ negligence. He asks to be reimbursed for any judgment or settlements, or that any damages awarded to the women suing him be apportioned by the court among those companies, based on their “comparative negligence.” He also seeks compensation for expenses and legal fees.
The Rolls-Royce attorneys, in their response to his cross-complaint, said any “injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligence and carelessness of cross-complainant and others, not by Rolls Royce.”
Wheels Boutique, an aftermarket automotive shop based in Florida, filed a motion a quash Thomas’ cross-complaint on the basis that California courts have no jurisdiction over the company. Wheels Boutique has no offices, garages, employees or agents in California, and does not solicit or advertise here, according to its motion.
The shop received Thomas’ SUV in February 2023, the document states, and performed body work, wheel installation and installation of a “lowering link” that makes a vehicle ride closer to the ground. Thomas paid close to $90,000 for that work and had it shipped off the lot. The 2023 Rolls-Royce Cullinan he was driving when he struck Pansanouck and Thammala had a suggested retail price ranging from $285,000 to $600,000, depending on its condition and equipment, according to Kelley Blue Book.
Superior Court Judge Cynthia P. Smith will rule on the Wheels Boutique motion Feb. 6.
Neither Holman Motorcars or Rolls-Royce of Los Gatos had filed responses to the cross-complaint by Jan. 15. Attempts to reach representatives of each company were unsuccessful.
The same day Thomas cross-sued Rolls-Royce and the others, he filed in Napa to strike punitive damages in the Thammala-Pansanouck lawsuit.
A supporting memorandum for that motion by Thomas accuses the two friends and their companions of “taking what is clearly a tragic and unfortunate matter and warping it into a claim of punitive damage.” It refers to parts of their civil complaint as “inflammatory language with no substance.”
Thomas’ attorneys refer to a number of witness statements as “hearsay,” including observations that the driver was “angry,” and that he “peeled out” and “burned rubber” after “revving his engine.” They note Thomas informed Napa police officers his Rolls-Royce sped up without his control, as acknowledged in the crash report.
“Plaintiffs’ own pleadings state at best a vehicle driven by an older gentleman that somehow sped up and was involved in an accident,” Thomas’ supporting memorandum states.
The attorney representing him, Andrew K. Murphy of Pleasanton, declined comment. The plaintiffs’ attorneys at Habbas Law did not respond to interview requests.
In order to win punitive damages, Thomas’ team argues, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that he acted with malice, oppression or fraud. The lawsuit doesn’t offer enough facts to support those claims, they say.
“At best, Mr. Thomas’ alleged conduct could perhaps be described as careless, or even reckless, but there is nothing to indicate that it reflected an evil motive to harm people,” according to the supporting memorandum.
In a Dec. 16 opposition to the motion, attorneys for the women argued that punitive damages don’t require an intent to injure.
Their lawsuit “alleges far more than speed alone,” the court response states. Thomas “knowingly violated multiple traffic laws, entered a marked crosswalk occupied by pedestrians, ignored warnings, and drove despite known impairments. All conduct that a reasonable jury could find despicable and carried out with conscious disregard.”
The known impairments likely refer to macular degeneration, an eye disorder
Smith, the presiding judge, sided with the plaintiffs at a Dec. 30 hearing, allowing the women to sue for punitive damages. A case management conference is set for March 24.
You can reach Phil Barber at 707-521-5263 or phil.barber@pressdemocrat.com. On X (Twitter) @Skinny_Post.
