On Jan. 2, 2016, plaintiff Austin Reilly, 20, a student and part-time certified nursing assistant, ordered a pizza delivery from Foothill Pizza, a local Domino’s Pizza franchise in Covina. The pizza was delivered by Michael Parker. After the pizza and money had been exchanged, Reilly and Parker became involved in an altercation, ostensibly about a late delivery. During the altercation, Parker used a box cutter, supplied by Foothill Pizza for store use, to cut Reilly on his face, neck, hands and a wrist. Reilly sued Parker, the operator of Domino’s Store No. 8174, Foothill Pizza Inc., which was also erroneously sued as “Foothill Plaza Inc.,” Foothill Pizza’s owner, Bruce Gibson, and the franchisors, Domino’s Pizza Franchise LLC and Domino’s Pizza LLC. Reilly alleged that Parker’s actions constituted negligence, assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also alleged that Gibson, Foothill Pizza, Domino’s Pizza Franchise and Domino’s Pizza were vicariously liable for Parker’s conduct and negligent in the hiring of Parker. Reilly’s parents, Christie Reilly and Owen Reilly, also sued the defendants, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, but their claims were dismissed by way of nonsuit following opening statements. In addition, Gibson, Domino’s Pizza Franchise and Domino’s Pizza obtained summary judgment in their favor prior to trial. Thus, the matter continued with Austin Reilly’s claims against Parker and Foothill Pizza. Austin Reilly testified that he thought Parker was trying to kill him. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, prior to Parker’s employment with Foothill Pizza, a background check was negative for criminal convictions, but following the incident, it was revealed that Parker actually had two prior felony convictions: one for possession of marijuana for sale and the other for a sexual act against a minor, the latter of which did not require sexual registration. Counsel claimed that Foothill Pizza knew about the convictions prior to the incident. Counsel also asserted that even though Parker told his general manager that he had spent time in prison, no further investigation as to Parker’s criminal past was done prior to the incident. Foothill Pizza denied having prior knowledge of Parker’s criminal history, but in anticipation of trial, Foothill Pizza admitted vicarious liability for Parker’s conduct during the incident. As such, the issue of its alleged notice of the convictions was irrelevant. However, the court permitted evidence of Parker’s convictions, pursuant to Evidence Code § 788, but plaintiffs’ counsel was precluded from arguing or asserting that the felony convictions were evidence that Parker committed a crime or assault in connection with the incident. Defense counsel contended that, during cross-examination, Reilly was impeached on a number of occasions with respect to his alcohol consumption and his claims that he was just trying to protect his property. Specifically, there was testimony that Reilly had three drinks that evening, despite Reilly not yet being 21 years old. Defense counsel also noted that plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to utilize segments of a surveillance video to persuade the jury that Reilly did nothing wrong prior to being cut by Parker’s box cutter. Defense counsel argued that the surveillance footage showed that Reilly was the aggressor throughout the entirety of the altercation, noting that the footage caught Reilly advancing toward Parker, kicking at Parker on his driveway, and Reilly’s friends following them into the street. Counsel contended that instead of closing the door on Parker and going back to his party, Reilly began kicking at Parker to get him off the property. Counsel also contended that Reilly pursued Parker down the driveway and into the street and that approximately 15 of Reilly’s friends followed them into the street. Once there, Reilly could be seen on the surveillance video lunging at Parker, who attempted to back up numerous times and shield himself from Reilly’s kicks. Defense counsel argued that Parker acted appropriately given Reilly’s conduct., The trial was trifurcated, with the issue of liability preceding damages and punitive damages. So, damages were not before the court. Austin Reilly sustained an approximate 5-inch laceration to his face, a laceration to his left ear and a laceration to the left side of his neck. He also sustained lacerations to the tips of his fingers and a laceration to his right hip and abdomen. In addition, two extensor tendons in his left wrist were severed, resulting in a radial sensory nerve injury. Immediately following the incident, Reilly was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was treated and released. He continued to receive care for his left wrist for months after the incident, and he ultimately required surgical repair of the left wrist’s radial sensory nerve on Jan. 4, 2016. He then had three follow-up visits for his wrist between January 2016 and April 2016. Reilly had no related medical treatment from April 14, 2016, to Feb. 7, 2018. Reilly claimed that he is left with scars on his neck, fingers, and left wrist. He also claimed that he is left with stiffness and throbbing pain in his neck and right shoulder, as well as permanent nerve damage that resulted in stiffness, dull tingling, and sharp, shooting pain in his neck, fingers and left wrist. In addition, Reilly claimed that his cause him recurring headaches. He contended that as a result of his continued pain and stiffness, he will need additional treatment. Reilly asserted that as a result of his , he could not work as a registered nurse, as he had intended. He claimed that he suffers diminished earning capacity. Reilly sought recovery of approximately $2,300 past medical costs, and unspecified amounts for his future medical costs, and past and future loss of earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. In addition, Reilly sought recovery of punitive damages. Plaintiff’s’ counsel asserted that Reilly was entitled to punitive damages because Foothill Pizza knew of Parker’s criminal history and consciously disregarded the safety of Reilly and others by hiring Parker and allowing Parker to make deliveries to customers’ homes. Defense counsel disputed Reilly’s alleged residual , asserting that Reilly was impeached during cross-examination at depositions in regard to his alleged disabilities.