On Feb. 1, 2016, plaintiffs’ decedent Xingzhu Shi, 69, a retiree, and his wife, both residents of Shanghai, China, were visiting their daughter and her family in San Jose. At around 2 p.m., Shi was gathering edible flowers near an over 100 foot eucalyptus tree in Berryessa Creek Park when the tree failed, completely uprooted, and fell, crushing Shi to death. The decedent’s wife, Yufeng Zhou, and their daughter, Ying Shi, sued the city of San Jose. The decedent’s family alleged that the city was negligent for failing to inspect and properly maintain the tree, creating a dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that, during discovery, the city admitted that it had never inspected the subject tree because it had mistakenly believed the tree was located on land owned and maintained by the Santa Clara County Water District. The plaintiffs’ arboriculture expert testified that at least 20 years ago, and possibly longer, construction work in the vicinity of the tree resulted in the burial of the tree’s root collar with fill soil, which suffocated its structural roots and led to decay from Armillaria root rot. The expert opined that the fungus infected the tree and caused it to fail. He also opined that it had been severely and improperly pruned, which is a red flag for tree failure. Moments before jury selection, the city withdrew its defenses and admitted liability., Xingzhu Shi, 69, sustained multiple crush and died immediately at the scene. He was survived by his daughter, Ying Shi, then a 39-year-oldmanager at a software company, and his wife, Yuefeng Zhou, then a 69-year-old, retired inventory manager. Plaintiffs’ counsel presented evidence of the close familial bonds between the decedent and his wife and daughter. Counsel contended that the decedent and his wife often traveled from China to visit their daughter and her family in California. Their daughter’s family included her husband and their 1-year-old son. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award the decedent’s family $10 million in damages, including in stipulated economic damages for burial costs and future pension and care expenses, and an unspecified amount of wrongful death damages. The defense’s economics expert tabulated a report that produced $67,732.14 in economic damages and stipulated that the amount was accurate. Thus, defense counsel did not call any witnesses at trial, and only briefly cross-examined the plaintiffs’ witnesses. As a result, the matter was only tried on non-economic damages, and defense counsel asked the jury to only award the plaintiffs $500,000 in damages.