On Oct. 14, 2012, plaintiffs Jon Anderson Jr., 20, and Jessica Martin, 18, both community college students, were at a gathering of friends at a house in Victorville. At around 2:50 a.m., their friend, who admittedly drank a lot, got into his vehicle, despite everyone telling him not to, and drove down First Avenue to the T-intersection with Nisqualli Road. There were no lights at the intersection, but there were markings on the roadway. The friend drove through the stop sign and struck the north curb, launching his vehicle well off the roadway and into a parking lot of a private business. As a result, the friend became trapped in the overturned vehicle. Anderson, Jessica, and the other guests heard the collision and ran to the T-intersection. They called 911, and a deputy from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department was dispatched. Deputy Fidler drove to the first location reported, but did not see anything, as the group was at the vehicle located off the roadway. As a result, he exited his vehicle to get a better vantage point and saw the group, which included Anderson and Jessica, waving him down. After reaching the location of the accident, Fidler stayed near the friend, who was still trapped in the overturned vehicle. He talked to the trapped friend and made a radio call to expedite the fire department and paramedics. Although Fidler smelled alcohol on the breath of the trapped friend and the group, which included mainly 19 and 20 year olds, his main concern was for the trapped friend. Four minutes and 20 seconds after Fidler arrived at the overturned vehicle, he made another radio call, this time reporting that two pedestrians were struck by a vehicle on Nisqualli Road. Specifically, Anderson and Jessica were making their way across Nisqualli Road, when they were struck by a private vehicle traveling at around 30 mph in the right, number one, eastbound lane. Anderson claimed to his head and left leg, and Jessica claimed to her head and a knee. Anderson and Jessica sued Fidler and Fidler’s employers, the county of San Bernardino and its Sheriff’s Department. Officer B. Moler was initially thought to be on scene at the time of the second accident, but it was later determined that only Fidler was on scene at that time. As a result, Moler was let out of the case. In addition, Fidler was dismissed on the eve of trial, following a stipulation that Fidler was in the course and scope of his employment with the county at the time of the events in question. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against the county only. A separate claim was brought against the private vehicle driver, but the driver defaulted. Anderson, Jessica and two of their friends all testified that Fidler told them to get back across the street. Thus, as the group began to make their way across the street, with Anderson and Jessica walking arm-in-arm, Anderson and Jessica were struck by a vehicle traveling east in the number 1 lane of Nisqualli Road. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that because Fidler ordered the group to cross the street, he created a special relationship with them and owed them a duty of care. Counsel also contended that if the order was given, then Fidler was negligent because he did not park closer to the accident and failed to place cones or barriers on the roadway. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Fidler should have escorted the group across the street. At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ counsel’s opening statement, defense counsel moved for non-suit on the first cause of action for dangerous condition of public property. Judge David Cohn granted the motion, finding that there was no representation of a dangerous condition at the intersection. Thus, the trial continued as to the second cause of action for general negligence in the event a special relationship was demonstrated. Defense counsel noted that neither Fidler nor the three fire department members remember any order for the bystanders to get back across the street. Counsel also noted that less than 30 days after the accident, Jessica made a Facebook posting telling a friend what happened, but never mentioned an order to cross the street. Thus, defense counsel used the Facebook evidence to impeach Jessica, and argued that there was no order made to cross the street. Defense counsel asserted that even if an order was made, no warnings were necessary to the group of adults. Specifically, counsel contended that Fidler did not know location of the accident until he was on foot and that when dealing with the friend trapped in the overturned vehicle, Fidler did not have to do more to prevent an accident on the roadway, which was estimated at roughly 50 feet away. Counsel also contended that there was a marked crosswalk and that if Fidler told the group to cross, then they could have taken care, as adults, and looked both ways before crossing. On cross-examination, the friends who were walking behind Anderson and Jessica admitted that they never saw Anderson or Jessica look before attempting to cross the roadway. Anderson and one of his friends also admitted that there was alcohol at the party and that Anderson had two or three beers that night. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that although Fidler denied giving the order to cross the street, he was impeached by the bystanders at the scene who said he did., Upon being struck by the private vehicle, Jessica was thrown to the left and Anderson was thrown to the right. There were both subsequently transported by air to different hospitals. Jessica sustained a traumatic brain injury. She also sustained a dislocated and severely damaged knee, resulting in tears of three out of the four ligaments. The dislocated knee was surgically repaired and her brain injury stabilized. Jessica also underwent limited physical therapy for her knee injury Jessica claimed that she is left with substantial scarring to her knee and that she suffers from cognitive problems as a result of her brain injury. The plaintiffs’ expert orthopedist opined that Jessica would eventually require a total knee reconstruction. The plaintiffs’ expert neuropsychologist opined that Jessica suffered a frontal lobe injury, resulting in a permanent, cognitive impairment in the form of an inability to control her inhibitions and judgment. However, Jessica did not receive any counseling. Anderson sustained a traumatic brain injury, and a displaced fracture of his left leg’s tibia and fibula. While at the hospital, he underwent surgery on the left leg with a placement of a halo device on the leg. The plaintiffs’ expert neuropsychologist opined that Anderson suffered from permanent brain damage in the form of memory impairment. The plaintiffs’ expert neuropsychologist opined that both Jessica and Anderson had ongoing cognitive issues as a result of the accident. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award Jessica and Anderson $23.8 million in total damages. Defense counsel denied that either Jessica or Anderson had residual cognitive . Counsel contended that the plaintiffs’ academic records, especially for Anderson, showed no mark difference when comparing grades from before the accident to those after the accident. Defense counsel noted that on cross-examination, the plaintiffs’ neuropsychology expert admitted that he was unaware of a prior brain injury sustained by Anderson approximately one year before the subject accident and that he failed to review any medical records or academic records for either plaintiff from before the accident. Thus, defense counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ neuropsychology expert did not have sufficient information to diagnose permanent, cognitive impairment from the subject accident. Defense counsel chose not to call their expert neurologist at the time of trial. However, according to plaintiffs’ counsel, the defense’s expert neurologist did not testify at trial because he was impeached during his deposition.