On July 24, 2018, plaintiff Silvano Garcia Hernandez, a farm worker in his 30s, was driving on north on State Route 99, also known as the Golden State Highway, in Fresno, with his wife, plaintiff Paula Martinez Santiago, and three minor children, plaintiffs Cesar Garcia Martinez, Noemi Garcia Martinez and Nayeli Garcia Martinez, as occupants in the vehicle. When they were just south of the Belmont Avenue exit, their sport utility vehicle became involved in a minor collision with a sheet metal truck operated by Gabriel Villanueva. Mr. Garcia Hernandez and Villanueva pulled over to the side of the road, and Villanueva informed the family that he was operating a company vehicle for Purl’s Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning and that he needed to make a police report, as well as contact his supervisor, Jacob Davidson. While they were waiting for the California Highway Patrol to arrive, Mrs. Martinez Santiago exited the front passenger seat of the SUV and sat in the back of the vehicle with her children. Davidson then arrived at the scene and pulled his pickup truck over in front of Villanueva’s truck, which was in front of the SUV. When California Highway Patrol Officer Abraham Santos approached the scene, he pulled his motorcycle in front of Davidson’s vehicle. Thus, the vehicles were lined up in a row on the side of the highway. Shortly after the officer arrived at the scene, a vehicle operated by Ronald Jones collided into the back of the Garcia Hernandez vehicle while Mr. Garcia Hernandez was looking for damage in between his SUV and Villanueva’s truck. As a result, the Garcia Hernandez SUV was pushed into Villanueva’s truck, crushing Mr. Garcia Hernandez between them. Mr. Garcia Hernandez sustained to his head, face, jaw, legs, feet, an ankle, and a hip. His wife, Mrs. Martinez Santiago, and one of his children, Cesar, witnessed the event and claimed psychological . Mr. Garcia Hernandez, individually, and Mrs. Martinez Santiago, acting individually and on behalf of Cesar, Noemi and Nayeli, sued Villanueva; Villanueva’s employer, Purl’s Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning; Davidson; Jones; Santos; and Santos’ employers, the State of California and the California Highway Patrol. The Garcia Hernandez family alleged that Villanueva, Davidson, Santos and Jones were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles. The family also alleged that Purl’s Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning was vicariously liable for Villanueva’s and Davidson’s actions and that the state and the CHP were vicariously liable for Santos’ actions. The dispatcher for the CHP, Sheldon Bacchus, and another CHP officer, Kristopher Moreno, were also named as defendants, but they were both dismissed from the case. The insurer for the Purl’s Sheet Metal defendants agreed to tender the full limits of its insurance policies, which provided $5 million of coverage, in order to settle the claims against them. Of the total settlement, $4,526,500 was paid to Mr. Garcia Hernandez, $251,500 was paid to Mrs. Martinez Santiago, and $84,000 was paid to each of the three children. Most of the funds were placed in an annuity. In addition, Jones’ insurer agreed to tender the full limits of its insurance policy, which provided $30,000 of coverage, in order to settle the claims against Jones. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against only Santos, the state and the CHP, as the other defendants were out of the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Santos was negligent in the handling of the initial accident location and should have prevented the subsequently accident. The plaintiff’s police policy expert testified that the CHP policy dictated that the use of best judgment, which in this case would have been to create a zone of safety, so that other vehicles on the roadway would allegedly avoid the area. The expert noted that when Santos arrived at the scene, people were out of their vehicles on a dangerous highway’s shoulder, which was only 8-feet wide with urban traffic whizzing by a few feet away. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Santos himself testified that the shoulder was dangerous. As a result, the police policy expert opined that before Santos stopped his motorcycle in front of the line of vehicles, Santos should have used his command presence to pull up next to the people standing on the shoulder and direct them to get back into their vehicles immediately. Defense counsel contended that the CHP policy dictated that when investigating a non-injury collision where vehicles were pulled off the road beyond the fog line, the investigating officer would park in front of the vehicles. Counsel also contended that Santos had yet to remove his helmet when the collision occurred, so there was no special relationship established between the parties such that they would be directed by Santos. Santos, who was a motorcycle training officer, testified about why he approached the way he did and why he parked in front of the line of vehicles stopped on the shoulder, claiming that he was following CHP policy. The defense’s motorcycle expert, who was in-house for the CHP and part of the motorcycle training unit, opined that if Santos parked behind all of the stopped vehicles, it would have produced an officer fatality and that is why CHP policy dictated that the arriving officer park in front of all of the vehicles., Mr. Garcia Hernandez sustained a crush injury to his head, resulting in a traumatic brain injury. Specifically, he sustained a depressed skull fracture; an open fracture of the frontal bone with a degloving injury that exposed the frontal bone; comminuted fractures of the nasal bone and bridge; a facture of the mandible or jawbone; bilateral medial orbital wall fractures with a fracture of the left orbital floor; and a fracture of orbital apex, resulting in a globe avulsion — or protrusion of the eyeball from the orbit — with an avulsion of the left optic nerve. Mr. Garcia Hernandez also sustained traumatic to other parts of his body, including a nondisplaced fracture of the left acetabulum at the junction with the superior pubic ramus, a closed traumatic dislocation of the sacroiliac joint, and a closed fracture of sacrum. He also sustained a closed displaced fracture of the third metacarpal bone of his right hand; a closed displaced fracture of second metatarsal bone of the right foot; a fracture of the right ankle’s distal fibula; and a bimalleolar fracture of the right ankle, including a closed fracture of the medial malleolus. In addition, he suffered traumatic pneumocephalus (an asymptomatic intracranial collection of air), a traumatic cerebral spinal fluid leak, acute respiratory distress and acute blood loss anemia. Mr. Garcia Hernandez was immediately taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he underwent emergency treatment. He remained at the hospital for over a month, during which time he underwent extensive surgeries, including a bifrontal craniotomy, and a surgery to remove the eyeball and replace it with an orbital implant. He also underwent open reduction and internal fixation to treat the naso-orbitoethmoid complex fracture; closed reduction and internal fixation to treat the bimalleolar ankle fracture; and open reduction and internal fixation to treat his pelvis, and right ankle and foot. In addition, he underwent pedicle screw fixation to the sacrum. Mr. Garcia Hernandez claimed that despite the treatment he underwent, he is left with a neurocognitive disorder and personality changes due to the traumatic brain injury. He also claimed that he continutes to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. At trial, plaintiffs’ counsel mainly presented evidence and testimony as to how Mr. Garcia Hernandez’s TBI would affect his future. Specifically, Mr. Garcia Hernandez had an elementary school education growing up in Mexico, but he was able to obtain employment as a farmworker and support his wife and three minor children on his own. However, counsel contended that after the subject accident, Mr. Garcia Hernandez could no longer drive. The plaintiffs’ life care planning expert presented a plan and future treatment for Mr. Garcia Hernandez. The expert opined that Mr. Garcia Hernandez’s damages would total $7,348,399, as Mr. Garcia Hernandez was unable to work, lost the ability to take care of himself and his family, and continues to need in-home care. Mr. Garcia Hernandez’s wife, Ms. Martinez Santiago, claimed that she suffers from emotional distress due to witnessing the accident and her husband’s . Ms. Martinez Santiago sought recovery for her past and future emotional pain and suffering, loss of consortium and loss of support. Mr. Garcia Hernandez’s minor son, Cesar, claimed that he also saw the accident and that he suffers from continued emotional distress due to witnessing it. Cesar sought recovery for his past and future emotional pain and suffering, and loss of support. The family’s minor daughters, Noemi and Nayeli, sought recovery for their loss of support. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiffs close to $45 million in total damages for their respective pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of consortium, as well as for Mr. Garcia Hernandez’s future medical care, and loss of the ability to take care of himself and his family in the future.