On Oct. 7, 2013, plaintiffs’ decedent Rolando Anaya, 34, a maintenance worker and groundskeeper at R.J. Noble Co.’s materials recycling plant, in Corona, was cleaning up debris near a rock-crushing machine when he became entangled in the conveyor belt and was pulled into it. Anaya was subsequently crushed to death inside the machine. The decedent’s partner, Eliza Perez, acting as guardian ad litem for the decedent’s three minor children, Johnny Anaya, Ezekiel Anaya and Delila Anaya, sued the company that manufactured the conveyor belt, Superior Industries Inc. (which was doing business as Superior Industries Conveyors Inc.); the company that designed, sold and assembled the rock-crushing machine, General Equipment & Supplies Inc. (which was doing business as Tri-State Aggregate Machinery); the company that manufactured the safety guards that were included with the machine, Fab Tec Inc.; and several other companies. The Anaya family alleged that the defendants defectively designed the machine, its safety guards and other machinery components. Fab Tec settled out of the case, and several other defendants were let out of the case prior to trial. The matter continued against General Equipment only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that General Equipment defectively designed the rock-crushing machine to use removable safety guards, which it provided, with no interlock or adequate emergency stop device. The plaintiffs’ civil engineering expert opined that if the safety guards were removed, then there should have been an interlock device or an emergency stop installed. General Equipment’s counsel contended that the safety guards were removed by the decedent’s employer, R.J. Noble, and that R.J. Noble should have never allowed the machine to operate without the provided safety guards. Thus, R.J. Noble was included on the verdict sheet (not as a defendant), but since it was the decedent’s employer, the only remedy available to the plaintiffs was workers’ compensation. Defense counsel further argued that the decedent was negligent for working near the machine without a safety guard. General Equipment’s counsel argued that the subject machine was safe, if it was used with the safety guards provided, and that when it delivered the machine, General Equipment provided an emergency stop in the control room, which was the primary physical guard. The defense’s civil engineering expert opined that a secondary stop was unnecessary, as an emergency stop was already provided. (Defense counsel noted that Judge Michelle Court did not allow the defense’s civil engineering expert to opine about The American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ standard for conveyor belts and found it inadmissible at trial.), Rolando Anaya, 34, sustained multiple traumatic crushing and subsequently died at the scene. He was survived by his sons, Johnny (then age 17) and Ezekiel (then age 11), and his daughter, Delila (then age 14). The decedent’s children claimed they lived with their mother, Eliza Perez, who was the decedent’s partner and not married to him, but that they loved their father very much. Thus, they sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of their father’s love, compassion and guidance. General Equipment’s counsel claimed that the decedent did not live in the same state as his children and that the decedent only saw his family a few weeks per year and was absent from their lives for a number of years.