Shortly before 5:40 a.m. on Feb. 28, 2010, plaintiffs’ decedent Randy Hernandez, 20, a baggage handler at Los Angeles International Airport, was driving a Land Rover when it impacted a parked or slowing Cadillac operated by Eric Levelle Ramson-Lauderdale Jr., which had a flat right rear tire on the southbound 110 Freeway, adjacent to the Staples Center. As a result, Hernandez’s vehicle spun out and ended up facing north with its headlights pointing in the opposite direction, toward southbound traffic. Both vehicles were stalled and/or immobile in the first lane. Both men subsequently exited their vehicles, exchanged information and were waiting for help to arrive when an unmarked Crown Victoria operated by Los Angeles Sheriff Deputy Ted Broadston, who was in the scope of employment, approached in the first lane and impacted Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle. As a result, Broadston’s airbag immediately deployed, causing the vehicle to go hard to the left and into the concrete “jersey” barrier, median wall, where both Hernandez and Ramson-Lauderdale were standing. Broadston’s vehicle then cleared Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle, completely missed Hernandez’s vehicle, and headed straight toward Hernandez and Ramson-Lauderdale. Hernandez was killed in the accident and Ramson-Lauderdale was either thrown or jumped over the 5.5′ wall and into the median of the Northbound 110 Freeway, where he fractured his ankle. All parties agreed that if Hernandez remained in his vehicle, he would have lived. The California Highway Patrol’s Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team investigated the incident and ultimately determined that Broadston was traveling at a minimum of 75 mph at the time of the impact. The case was referred to the District Attorney for possible prosecution for manslaughter, but the D.A. declined to prosecute. Hernandez’s 2.5-year-old daughter, Jocelyn Hernandez, acting by and through her guardian ad litem, Debbie Castaneda, and Hernandez’s mother, Marta Hernandez sued Broadston and his employers, the county of Los Angeles and theLos Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. They alleged that Broadston was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, and that the county and Sheriff’s Department were vicariously liable for Broadston’s actions. Thus, they alleged that the defendants were liable for Hernandez’s wrongful death. Broadston was later dismissed from the case without prejudice prior to trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against the county and the Sheriff’s Department only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Broadston was negligent on the grounds that he was speeding and not keeping a proper lookout. They contended that had Broadston been traveling the speed limit of 55 mph and paying proper attention, he could have detected and avoided Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle. Counsel contended that by striking Lauderdale’s vehicle, Broadston lost control, careening into the median between the median wall and Hernandez’s vehicle, and then struck Randy Hernandez. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified that Broadston’s vehicle was going 82 mph at the time it hit the right, rear of Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle at full speed. There was a dispute as to whether the two men were standing on the small median between Hernandez’s stalled vehicle, towards its rear, and the median or whether they were in front of Hernandez’s vehicle, thinking they were protected by Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle, which was about 150 feet north of their location, with the headlights of Hernandez’s vehicle illuminating them. Broadston testified that he did not see Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle or Hernandez’s vehicle. He claimed that as he approached in the first lane, he did not see the Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle, which was about 150 feet closer to southbound traffic than Hernandez’s vehicle, even though Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle probably had its flashers on based on certain eyewitness testimony. He alleged that as a result, he never hit his brakes or swerved prior to impact. Broadston further testified that knew he was traveling between 55 and 60 mph just before impact because looked at his speedometer about 1 to 3 seconds before crash. Defense counsel noted that Hernandez called 911 before the second impact and shortly after Broadston struck Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle and killed Hernandez, a pickup truck operated by a non-party individual approached the scene. The non-party individual claimed to have also been traveling in the first lane and also struck Lauderdale’s vehicle, though to a much lesser degree than Broadston’s collision. The non-party individual also claimed that it was impossible to see and avoid Lauderdale’s vehicle. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert disputed the plaintiffs’ claim about Broadston’s speed and testified that the speed of 82 mph could only be achieved if Broadston’s vehicle was not under power, in which the driver had his foot pressing down on the accelerator and the engine was working, after it collided with Lauderdale’s vehicle. The expert noted that the force of the impact would have caused Broadston’s foot to come off the accelerator and caused the fuel cut off switch to cut power to the engine. Thus, the accident reconstructionist testified that if the vehicle was under power after it struck Lauderdale’s vehicle, Broadston was in reality traveling at 55 mph at the time of impact. Defense counsel noted that Ramson-Lauderdale also testified that Broadston’s vehicle was under power after it struck his vehicle. In addition, the defense’s experts testified that the headlights from the Land Rover “washed out” Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle, so that it was not visible until it was too late to avoid the impact. Thus, the defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that Broadston’s vehicle was traveling at between 55 and 60 mph, consistent with Broadston’s testimony. Defense counsel argued that Ramson-Lauderdale’s and Hernandez’s vehicles created a trap and that it was impossible for Broadston, the non-party individual or any other driver to detect and/or avoid Ramson-Lauderdale’s vehicle in time. Counsel also argued that the county and Broadston had zero liability. Counsel asserted that Hernandez disobeyed direct instructions from the California Highway Patrol and the 911 operator by exiting his vehicle and that if Hernandez remained in his vehicle, he would have lived. Thus, defense counsel argued that if the county had any liability, it should be limited to 10 percent to 20 percent. Defense counsel noted that the Sheriff’s Department allowed Broadston’s vehicle to go to salvage about four months after the date of accident and before the six-month statutory government claim-filing deadline. Over objection by the defense, the plaintiffs were able to get a willful destruction of evidence jury instruction to the jury and make the argument that by allowing Broadston’s vehicle to go to salvage, the plaintiffs’ expert was precluded from examining the vehicle and downloading any data from the module attached to the airbag, which might have provided better information on the delta-v, or change in velocity, of Broadston’s vehicle at the moment of airbag deployment. Defense counsel argued that since both accident reconstruction experts were able to render opinions in this case, Broadston’s vehicle was not necessary and, therefore, the destruction of evidence claim was nothing but a distraction designed to get the jury upset with the Sheriff’s Department. Defense counsel also noted that over the plaintiffs’ objection, the defense was able to get into evidence a post-mortem toxicology report, which revealed trace amounts of marijuana in Hernandez’s blood at the time of his death. A toxicologist for the defense testified that the post-mortem levels in Hernandez’s blood indicated that Hernandez had smoked marijuana prior to his death and was under the influence. However, the plaintiff’s expert toxicologist said that the amount of marijuana was so small that there was no way for defense counsel to prove Hernandez was impaired at the time of his death., Randy Hernandez was struck by a vehicle and died at the scene. He was 20 years old. Hernandez is survived by his daughter Jocelyn, who was 2.5-years-old at time of her father’s death. Hernandez and Jocelyn’s mother were not married at the time of the accident and he was living with his mother, Marta Hernandez, while Jocelyn was living with her mother, Debbie Castaneda. Castaneda claimed that Hernandez would see Jocelyn, who is now 4, once a week and on days off, and would also speak with her on the phone every night. She also claimed that Hernandez provided approximately $300 a month to help care for Jocelyn. Thus, Castaneda sought recovery of only non-economic damages on behalf of Jocelyn. Counsel for Jocelyn asked the jury to place a value on every year until Hernandez’s daughter was about 18, and suggested that $500,000 to $1 million award was not unreasonable. Counsel also left it up to the jury to decide what was fair and reasonable for Jocelyn’s adult years spent without the benefit of her father’s love, advice, comfort and society. In order to quality as a plaintiff under the California wrongful death statute, Marta Hernandez claimed that she was financially “dependent” on her son at the time of his death. The economist for Marta Hernandez provided a loss of support range from a low of about $5,000 to a high of $131,000. Counsel for Marta Hernandez introduced examples of how much society can value a life and suggested that an award $10 million to $50 million would not be unreasonable. Defense counsel argued that if the jury were to find the county and Sheriff’s Department liable due to Broadston’s actions, then the jury should only find them 10 percent to 20 percent liable. Defense counsel further suggested that should the jury find against the county and Sheriff’s Department on liability, then an award of $250,000 to $500,000 would be reasonable, but that anything over that would be excessive.