On June 29, 2010, plaintiff Gustavo Cazeneuve, 60, a truck driver, was driving a 1984 Mercedes 300 on northbound Serfas Club Drive in Corona with his wife, plaintiff Liliana Cazeneuve, 52, a homemaker, in the front passenger seat. At approximately 11 a.m., they attempted to cross the intersection with Frontage Road and broadsided a Toyota Yaris operated by Sylvia Craig Hoyt, who was making a left turn from southbound Serfas Club Drive onto eastbound Frontage Road. The Cazeneuves each claimed neck and back . Mr. and Mrs. Cazeneuve sued Hoyt and the owner of the Toyota Yaris, Hoyt’s mother, Savannah Joy Craig. The Cazeneuves alleged that Hoyt was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Craig was vicariously liable for her daughter’s actions. Specifically, they claimed that Hoyt failed to yield to oncoming traffic at the subject intersection, since both vehicles had green lights and Hoyt was attempting a left turn. Hoyt admitted liability for the accident., Ten days after the accident, the Cazeneuves both went to a chiropractor with complaints of neck and back pain. They were each diagnosed with soft-tissue strains and sprains, while Mrs. Cazeneuve’s diagnosis also included a small annular tear at the C4-5 level. As a result, the Cazeneuves each treated with the chiropractor for four months. Mr. Cazeneuve claimed his from the subject accident have mostly resolved. However, Mrs. Cazeneuve claimed she still has some residual neck pain that restricts her house work. As a result, Mrs. Cazeneuve claimed she will require cervical epidural injections and a cervical fusion surgery. Thus, Mr. Cazeneuve sought recovery of $8,000 in past medical costs and an unspecified amount of damages for his past pain and suffering. In addition, Mrs. Cazeneuve sought recovery of $10,000 in past medical costs, roughly $180,000 in future medical costs for the estimated cost of her additional treatment, and an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that the Cazeneuves were involved in a subsequent motor vehicle accident in May 2011, and that all of their alleged injury complaints were related to that second accident. Counsel also contended that any minor that may have been sustained in the underlying accident had resolved quickly.