'Succession' star Alan Ruck denies responsibility in lawsuit over November car crash that left man injured

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: The ‘Succession’ star Alan Ruck denied any wrongdoing on his part during the four-way crash involving his car in November 2023.

According to the recent motion, Ruck asked for the lawsuit to be thrown away, per RadarOnline.

Why is Alan Ruck sued?

Back in November, the 67-year-old actor got involved in a four-way crash when his Rivian electric truck partially slammed into Raffalo’s Pizza at the intersection of La Brea and Hollywood Blvd.

TMZ reported in early December that Ruck allegedly hit the car of another man named Horacio Vela. Vela filed a civil lawsuit against Ruck in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing the actor of colliding into his vehicle before ramming into the pizza shop.

In the lawsuit, Vela argued that his Hyundai was parked at a red light with Ruck’s truck behind him. He said that Ruck then slammed behind his car even though the signal was still red. 

After Vela’s car was purportedly pushed by Ruck’s car, it pushed him into oncoming traffic and caused Vela to collide with another vehicle.

Because of the crash, Vela said he suffered 'severe injuries and damages' from the crash. He added that he had been taken to a local hospital for check-up. 

Per the lawsuit, Vela claimed to have experienced “property damage, costs of past and future medical care, pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, and other consequential damages."

More on the accident and the lawsuit

Per the surveillance video footage obtained by TMZ, Ruck’s car collided with another 'vehicle from behind' which caused his car to smash into the pizza spot.

While two people were injured in the accident, they were both 'conscious' following the mayhem. No pedestrians were injured in the accident.

Internal investigation further found that Ruck’s car did not malfunction and he was not under the influence of any alcohol and drugs. The police also deemed it to be an accident. 

In the recent motion, Ruck argued “[Vela’s] damages, if any, are due in whole or in part to the proximate contributory and comparative fault of Plaintiff and/or third parties, and that the liability of Answering Defendant, which liability is specifically denied, should be reduced or barred in proportion to said fault.”

He further added that he is entitled to an “offset or credit for the full amount of all monies received by Plaintiff, either directly or indirectly, in connection with all insurance claims and settlements.”

A judge on the matter is still awaited.