Bail Denial in Malibu Crash Case Highlights Legal Shift for Pedestrian Victims
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The recent decision to deny bail reduction for Fraser Bohm, the driver accused of killing four Pepperdine University students in a 2023 Malibu crash, represents more than just a legal ruling; it signals a growing recognition of the rights of pedestrian victims and their families. Bohm, who allegedly drove his BMW at 104 mph in a 45 mph zone, faces four counts of murder and vehicular manslaughter for the deaths of Niamh Rolston, Peyton Stewart, Asha Weir, and Deslyn Williams. Despite his defense team’s arguments for reduced bail, Judge Thomas Rubinson upheld the $4 million bond, emphasizing that financial hardship in hiring a high-profile attorney does not override public safety concerns.
Why murder charges?
This case stands out because prosecutors pursued murder charges, not just manslaughter. Under California law, murder charges require proof of "malice aforethought," which can include conscious disregard for human life. Data from Bohm’s vehicle showed he accelerated to 104 mph just seconds before the crash, which prosecutors argue demonstrates a willful disregard for safety. This approach reflects a broader legal trend: extremely reckless driving is increasingly treated as a violent crime, not an "accident."
Pedestrian safety and accountability
The tragedy occurred on a notoriously dangerous stretch of Pacific Coast Highway known as "Dead Man’s Curve," where 53 deaths and 92 serious injuries occurred between 2013 and 2023. While road design may contribute to such incidents, the Bohm case underscores that individual accountability remains critical. Witnesses testified that Bohm was swerving and possibly using his phone before the crash, and despite his claim of a road-rage incident, investigators found no evidence to support this.
Rights for victims and families
For pedestrians and non-driver victims, this case highlights several key points:
- Civil claims: Beyond criminal charges, victims’ families have filed wrongful death lawsuits against Bohm and are also suing the state, county, and city for dangerous road design. This dual approach acknowledges that multiple parties may share responsibility in pedestrian accidents
- Punitive damages: In cases involving extreme recklessness, like excessive speeding, victims may seek punitive damages to punish the defendant and deter similar behavior
- Complex insurance battles: High-speed cases often involve disputes over insurance coverage, particularly when drivers act with gross negligence. Victims need legal support to navigate these complexities
What this means for our readers
If you or a loved one is injured as a pedestrian, the Bohm case reinforces the importance of:
- Documenting evidence (e.g., photos, witness contacts) immediately after an accident
- Understanding your rights to compensation, including medical costs, emotional distress, and punitive damages in egregious cases
- Challenging narratives that blame victims or dismiss crashes as "accidents" when recklessness is involved
Moving forward
The Bohm case continues with a pretrial hearing on October 8, 2025, but its impact is already clear: the legal system is increasingly prioritizing the rights of victims over the privileges of reckless drivers. As Tracy Rolston, mother of victim Niamh Rolston, stated after the bail ruling: "We’re just waiting for some justice to be served".
At YourAccident.com, we believe everyone deserves that justice, as well as the support to pursue it. If you’ve been affected by a similar incident, remember that you don’t have to navigate this alone. Submit your case details to us to connect with legal professionals who can help.
For more educational resources on your rights after an accident, visit our educational articles page. To stay updated on impactful news cases like this one, visit our news hub.
Tell us about your accident & get a free consultation now
Advertising is paid for by participating attorneys in a joint advertising program, licensed to practice law in their respective states. A complete list of joint advertising attorneys can be found here. You can request an attorney by name. We are not a law firm or an attorney referral service. This advertisement is not legal advice and is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of your legal matter. Every case is different. The outcome depends on the laws, facts, and circumstances unique to each case. Hiring an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertising. Request free information about your attorney's background and experience. This advertising does not imply a higher quality of legal services than that provided by other attorneys. This advertising does not imply that the attorneys are certified specialists or experts in any area of law. No legal services will be provided unless a signed agreement between the client and the attorney exists. We use cookies to personalize content and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our analytics partners, who may combine it with other information you've provided or collected from your use of their services. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.
