On March 12, 2010, plaintiffs LaSandra Jenkins-Nunn, an unemployed 41 year old; Lacy Taylor, an unemployed 56 year old; and Andre Nunn, an unemployed 47 year old; all tenants residing in Apartment C inside an apartment building at 1640 Ashby Avenue in Berkeley, requested that their furnace be turned back on. As a result, the on-site manager, who resided in Apartment B, returned to their apartment, re-ignited the pilot light and turned the furnace back on. However, throughout that night and early the next morning, the Williams-brand natural gas wall furnace malfunctioned and caused Jenkins-Nunn, Taylor and Nunn to inhale excessive amounts of carbon monoxide. Jenkins-Nunn, Taylor and Nunn sued the property owner, Dr. Crystal Terry; and the company that inspected the furnace and performed maintenance work on it, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Jenkins-Nunn, Taylor and Nunn alleged that Terry and PG&E were negligent in the maintenance and/or repair of the furnace, creating a dangerous condition. They also alleged that Terry breached then rental contract, the implied warranty of habitability, and the covenant of quiet enjoyment. PG&E settled prior to trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against Terry only. Jenkins-Nunn claimed that on Dec. 7, 2009, she entered into a month-to-month rental agreement with Terry for the apartment, but that the furnace failed to work properly from the time she signed the rental agreement, Dec. 7, 2009, to the time they were found to have been exposed to carbon monoxide, March 13, 2010. Specifically, she alleged that the furnace failed to heat the apartment, that the pilot light would go out and that the furnace was noisy when used. Jenkins-Nunn, Taylor and Nunn claimed that they repeatedly complained to the on-site manager about the unreliable nature of the indoor furnace and that as a result, Terry and PG&E inspected and performed maintenance work on the furnace, including installing a new thermostat, during the subject time prior. However, the plaintiffs claimed that Terry and PG&E ultimately turned off the furnace until they requested that it be turned back on during the evening of March 12, 2010, which the on-site manager did. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Terry’s failure to properly repair the furnace despite knowing of its problems caused the tenants of Apartment C to suffer carbon monoxide poisoning. Terry claimed she was not negligent, had no notice of any deficiencies with the heater, and reasonably performed her duties as a landlord. She also claimed that she complied with, and passed, all Section 8 housing inspection requirements and that she had the heaters inspected by PG&E when she purchased the building in 2006. Terry further claimed that the plaintiffs never made any complaints to her regarding their heater and, in fact, testified in their deposition that PG&E was the last one to light the pilot light prior the incident occurring. In addition, a former tenant of Apartment C testified that she never had any problems with the heater and that if the pilot light went out, she called PG&E to fix it., Jenkins-Nunn, Taylor and Nunn suffered carbon monoxide poisoning. They claimed the exposure caused them brain damage, resulting in cognitive , confusion, dizziness, vertigo, memory loss, numbness, and fatigue. They also claimed they suffered, and continue to suffer, from anxiety, depression, and extreme fear. The plaintiffs’ neurology expert opined that all three plaintiffs had permanent brain damage and would require treatment in the future for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. The plaintiffs’ medical life care planning expert opined that the plaintiffs would require future medical specials, including attendant care, in the amounts of $976,272.78 for Jenkins-Nunn, $757,773.63 for Nunn, and $581,114.75 for Taylor. In addition, Jenkins-Nunn sought recovery of $457,358 for her past and future wage loss. Defense counsel argued that none of the plaintiffs suffered any brain damage as a result to their exposure to carbon monoxide, and were already disabled and functioning at low cognitive levels prior to the incident. Specifically, defense counsel contended that the plaintiffs were chronic drug abusers and had applied for, or were on, disability when the incident occurred.