In February 2011, plaintiff Jimmie Johnson, a retiree, and his wife, plaintiff Ernestine Johnson, also a retiree, learned that the city of San Diego was going to abate their property, located at 12 South 35th St., in San Diego. The Johnsons previously purchased their home in 1974. However, in 1997, the city of San Diego obtained an injunction, requiring the Johnsons to eliminate a public nuisance at their property and adjoining properties. The city alleged that the Johnsons’ hoarding activities created a public nuisance, causing it to obtain numerous court orders to abate the subject property. City officials again abated the Johnsons’ property in February 2011, clearing the premises of garbage and demolishing a shed on the property. A court order also stipulated that the city had to install a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the property, post-abatement. On May 26, 2012, the Johnsons’ home burned down, and city fire investigators could not determine the cause of the fire. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson sued the city of San Diego under theories of gross negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Johnsons alleged that the city failed to install a chain-link fence around their property, that the city’s failure constituted negligence, and that they lost their home as a result of the city’s negligence. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, due to ongoing vandalism at the home, the Johnsons were forced to hire a contractor to install a wooden fence around the property after the city failed to provide a chain-link fence. However, after the hired contractor began building the wooden fence, the contractor stopped when the Johnsons failed to pay him. The plaintiffs’ fire investigation expert testified that the city’s failure to put up a chain link fence violated state building codes and made the home susceptible to vandalism and arson. Upon conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, plaintiffs’ counsel discontinued the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Defense counsel contended that after the 2011 abatement, Mr. Johnson and his daughter requested that the city allow them to erect a wooden fence in lieu of a chain-link fence. A city code enforcement official testified that the Johnsons stated that they wanted to avoid reimbursing the city for the cost of a more expensive chain-link fence. However, the Johnsons denied agreeing to relieve the city of its court-ordered obligation to install a chain-link fence. The defense’s fire investigation expert, a forensic scientist, opined that there was active electricity at the property at the time of the fire and that the conditions at the time may have sparked an electrical fire., The Johnsons’ home burned down on May 26, 2012. They claimed that witnessing the fire at the home where they had raised their two daughters was a traumatizing event. Thus, they alleged that, having witnessed their home burn down, they suffered from emotional distress. The Johnsons sought recovery of $270,000 in economic damages for the loss of their home, based on an estimate of the home’s fair market value before the fire, which was provided by the city’s fire department. They also sought recovery of damages for their emotional distress. The defense’s expert on structure replacement costs estimated that it would only cost $103,202 to replace the Johnsons’ home. In addition, the defense’s expert psychiatrist testified that the Johnsons did not incur psychiatric impairment or disorder as a result of the loss of their home. Instead, he opined that both plaintiffs suffered from dementia and that Mr. Johnson suffered from bipolar disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, with hoarding behaviors.