On March 19, 2014, plaintiff Gregory Bagwell, 65, a retiree, was operating his vehicle on southbound Hazel Avenue, heading to a Peet’s Coffee & Tea, located in a supermarket shopping center in Fair Oaks. His wife, plaintiff Linda Bagwell, was a passenger in the front seat of his vehicle. Mr. Bagwell pulled up behind two vehicles waiting to turn left into the shopping center. The vehicles were stopped in a reversible lane, which is a lane in the center of the roadway meant for passing in both directions, also known as a “suicide lane,” in that neither direction has the right-of-way and both directions are permitted to use the lane for passing. Ahead of Mr. Bagwell’s vehicle was a vehicle operated by Mia Funk, who had her two sons seated in the front and rear passenger seats. When oncoming traffic cleared, the first vehicle in line made its left turn. Although traffic remained clear, Ms. Funk’s vehicle did not turn. After waiting a few seconds, Mr. Bagwell initiated his left turn from his position behind Ms. Funk’s vehicle, entered the parking lot and then proceeded to Peet’s. However, Ms. Funk pulled up beside the Bagwell vehicle and confronted Mr. Bagwell regarding what she felt was an unsafe turn into the parking lot and a subsequent running of a stop sign within the parking lot. Ms. Funk eventually called her husband, John Funk, who arrived at the shopping center a short time later. The Funks then enter Peet’s and walked up to Mr. Bagwell. After a brief verbal exchange between Mr. Funk and Mr. Bagwell, Mr. Funk hit Mr. Bagwell in the left temple area, knocking him to the floor. Mr. Funk then beat Mr. Bagwell in the back several more times before leaving Peet’s. Mr. Bagwell claimed to his back and head. The altercation was captured on Peet’s video surveillance system. Mr. Bagwell and Ms. Bagwell sued Mr. Funk and Ms. Funk. Mr. Bagwell alleging intentional tort claims against Mr. Funk and negligence claims against Ms. Funk. Ms. Bagwell alleged that Mr. Funk’s actions constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress and that Ms. Funk’s actions constituted a negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ms. Funk’s insurer offered to settle Ms. Bagwell’s claims for $15,000, via C.C.P. § 998, which Ms. Bagwell accepted two weeks prior to trial. However, Ms. Funk’s insurer denied coverage to Mr. Funk on the basis that his tortious acts were intentional. Thus, the carrier indemnified and defended only Ms. Funk, without a reservation of rights, against the negligence claims. On the first day of trial, plaintiff’s counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege civil conspiracy against the Funks. However, Ms. Funk’s counsel opposed the motion, and the motion was denied. Mr. Bagwell denied cutting Ms. Funk off when making the left turn into the parking lot and denied running a stop sign in the parking lot. However, he alleged that Ms. Funk followed him into the shop to confront him and then called her husband, who met Ms. Funk at the shopping center and was taken into Peet’s so that Ms. Funk could point out Mr. Bagwell. Mr. Bagwell claimed that he was not the aggressor in the parking lot and that Ms. Funk was hostile towards him. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Ms. Funk was negligent for telling her husband that Mr. Bagwell “got in her face” because that was the sole reason Mr. Funk came to Peet’s and ended up attacking Mr. Bagwell. In support of Mr. Bagwell’s contentions, plaintiff’s counsel called two witnesses to the parking lot confrontation and subsequent attack. A Peet’s patron, who was seated outside of the shop approximately 30 feet from the area where the parking lot confrontation occurred, corroborated Mr. Bagwell’s testimony that Ms. Funk was the aggressor. In addition, a Peet’s barista on duty at the time of the incident testified that she did not see Mr. Bagwell do anything aggressive towards Ms. Funk. However, on cross-examination, Ms. Funk’s counsel established several inconsistencies in the testimony from the Peet’s patron, and elicited an admission that the witness did not see the entire interaction in the parking lot and that parked vehicles at least partially obscured his view. In addition, on cross-examination, the barista also conceded that her view was partially blocked and that she did not see the entire incident from her vantage point within Peet’s, which was over 60 feet from the parking lot. Ms. Funk contended that both she and Mr. Bagwell were traveling to shopping center, but that Mr. Bagwell was driving recklessly when he made a left hand turn, out of order, and caused her to be placed in life-threatening danger of being broadsided by oncoming traffic with her two children in the vehicle. She also contended that she witnessed Mr. Bagwell cut off another vehicle in the parking lot when he failed to stop at a stop sign. She alleged that as a result, she believed the driver was a reckless teenager, so upon recognizing Mr. Bagwell’s vehicle in the Peet’s parking lot, she pulled up next to him. Ms. Funk claimed that she then told Mr. Bagwell that he was driving unsafely and endangering her children, but that Mr. Bagwell was hostile and aggressive toward her, getting within inches of her face and yelling, “What are you going to do about it?” before walking away from her and entering Peet’s. She claimed that thereafter, Ms. Bagwell came from around the vehicle and had a conversation with her before attempting to give her a hug. Ms. Funk then got in her vehicle and drove over to get her children haircuts. Ms. Funk claimed that upon entering the haircutting place, she began experiencing an anxiety attack and called her husband for comfort and support. Mr. Funk then met his wife at the shopping center. Both Mr. Funk and Ms. Funk testified that Ms. Funk did not ask Mr. Funk to come to the shopping center. Mr. Funk, appearing pro se, claimed that once he was at the shopping center, he wanted to talk to Mr. Bagwell, so he and his wife went into Peet’s, where he asked his wife to identify Mr. Bagwell, which she did. Mr. Funk alleged that he was pushed back into a table after a brief verbal exchange with Mr. Bagwell and that, thereafter, the altercation ensued. Thus, he claimed that he was acting in self-defense because Mr. Bagwell pushed him into a table and that he only hit Mr. Bagwell because he perceived he was in peril of a further physical attack. Mr. Funk further testified that he had never been in a physical altercation prior to the subject incident. Ms. Funk’s counsel argued that Ms. Funk was not negligent because she had no idea that her husband was going to attack Mr. Bagwell and that she did nothing to incite the attack. Counsel contended that after Mr. Frank arrived at the shopping center, he told his wife that he wanted to have a conversation with Mr. Bagwell and that Ms. Funk believed that her husband meant a true conversation, and not a physical altercation. Ms. Funk also testified that she had no reason to believe that her husband was going to physically assault Mr. Bagwell, as her husband did not have a history of getting into physical altercations., Mr. Bagwell claimed he suffered two hairline fractures of the transverse processes on the left side of the L1 and L2 vertebrae. He also claimed that he suffered a concussion. After the incident, Mr. Bagwell was seen at a Kaiser Permanente emergency room and was diagnosed with a concussion and transverse process fractures of the L1 and L2 vertebrae. He subsequently treated with over the counter pain medication. However, Mr. Bagwell claimed that his ongoing lower back pain made it uncomfortable for him to sit for long periods of time. He also claimed that approximately one month after the incident, he began to experience transient, short-term, episodic double vision. Mr. Bagwell’s treating primary care physician testified that both the lumbar pain and double vision were more likely than not caused by the incident and that Mr. Bagwell would continue to experience those symptoms in the future. However, Mr. Bagwell did not seek recovery of future medical costs, and he made no claims of past and/or future wage loss. However, Mr. Bagwell and his wife both sought recovery of punitive damages against Mr. Funk. Defense counsel disputed the extent of Mr. Bagwell’s alleged damages, as Mr. Bagwell had a medical history of similar complaints. Counsel contended that Mr. Bagwell had a prior history of lower back pain, including prior transverse process fractures of the L1 and L2 vertebrae from a 10-foot fall from a ladder to a concrete surface, which occurred approximately four years before the subject Peet’s incident, from which Mr. Bagwell claimed the same to the same lumbar levels. Defense counsel noted that the first alleged double-vision episode did not occur until a month after the incident. Thus, counsel argued that the alleged episode could not have been significant since Mr. Bagwell continued to drag race and drive his 38-foot motor home after the alleged onset of those symptoms. Defense counsel further argued that the alleged ongoing lower back pain was minimal because the Bagwells continued to travel extensively, including a three-week trip to Europe in the summer of 2015, which included a Baltic cruise. In addition, defense counsel disputed Mr. Bagwell’s treating doctor’s testimony, arguing that the treating doctor’s opinions were made despite the lack of any positive objective findings on the multiple diagnostic tests done after the incident.