In the early morning of Jan. 28, 2014, plaintiffs’ decedent Ricardo Valdez, 39, a tow truck driver, was summoned by two officers of the California Highway Patrol to retrieve a vehicle stopped in a lane of traffic on Cedar Avenue, in Bloomington. Valdez appeared at the scene and attempted to load the vehicle onto his flatbed tow truck when he was struck by a vehicle operated by Maria Ochoa, pinning him against the rear of the tow truck. Ochoa fled the scene, and Valdez died several hours later as a result of the impact. Ochoa later pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter. Valdez’s mother, Josefina Santoyo, and Valdez’s two young daughters, Aylen Valdez and Vianey Valdez, (through their mother) sued Ochoa; the owner of Ochoa’s vehicle, Amalia Torres Corea; California Highway Patrolmen Cody Eisenbarth and Reynaldo Avalos; and the patrolmen’s employer, the state of California. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Ochoa had been intoxicated, which enabled the fatal collision. Counsel also contended that Eisenbarth and Avalos, as employees of the state, were negligent in failing to provide proper roadside security. Specifically, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the officers had a duty to ensure the decedent’s safety, given the special relationship between the police force and the tow truck operator. Thus, counsel maintained that, had the officers remained at the scene, the decedent would have been protected by a stopped patrol vehicle meant to shield the tow truck from traffic. Counsel for the state and the officers asserted that there was no special relationship in place and that the decedent had assumed the risk of injury in his occupation as a tow truck operator. Counsel further asserted that Ochoa was primarily to blame for the decedent’s death and that the decedent’s employer had not properly trained the decedent in California Highway Patrol towing practices. Ochoa claimed that the collision occurred after she attempted to avoid a swerving vehicle ahead of her and that she did not see the tow truck until the moment of impact., Ricardo Valdez was taken by ambulance to a local hospital, but he was declared dead from blunt force trauma several hours later. At the time of his death, Valdez lived with his mother and regularly saw his children. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained Santoyo was financially dependent on her son, who paid approximately $300 into her mortgage every month. Thus, Valdez’s mother and two minor children sought recovery of wrongful death damages. The Valdez estate did not seek economic damages, but intended to seek non-economic damages on behalf of Valdez’s surviving family. The state’s counsel disputed the alleged damages, denying that Santoyo was financially dependent on the decedent.