On Sept. 23, 2014, plaintiff David Stewart, 44, a cashier; his wife, plaintiff Leah Stewart, 36, an insurance agent; and her son Ayoni Nunley, 10, were traveling in their vehicle in Laguna Niguel when a police vehicle operated by an Orange County Sheriff, Jeremy Buffong, broadsided their sport utility vehicle. Mr. and Ms. Stewart each claimed they sustained a back injury, but Ms. Stewart also claimed she sustained a head injury. Ayoni claimed he sustained an ankle injury. Mr. Stewart (acting individually) and Ms. Stewart (acting individually and as Ayoni’s guardian ad litem) sued Buffong and Buffong’s employers, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the county of Orange. They alleged that Buffong was negligent in the operation of his police vehicle and that the county and sheriff’s department were liable for Buffong’s actions. The defendants admitted liability right before trial., Ayoni and his parents were all taken to a hospital after the collision. Mr. Stewart had a pre-existing lumbar condition, which was allegedly aggravated in the crash. He claimed that as a result, he suffered a lumbar disc bulge in his lower back. He underwent two rounds of epidural injections over 2.5 years until he ultimately underwent a disc replacement surgery on his lumbar spine. Ms. Stewart alleged that she sustained a concussion and suffered from chronic back pain as a result of the crash. She subsequently received back treatment, including physical therapy, at a Kaiser location. She claimed her past medical bills totaled approximately $30,000. Ms. Stewart also claimed that she lost her job as an insurance agent as result of having to take time off from work to attend doctor’s appointments and her inability to concentrate. She alleged that she still suffers from back pain and that she will require facet block injections to treat her pain. Ayoni claimed that he sustained a sprain of an ankle. He also alleged that he suffers from emotional , resulting in nightmares and a fear of police officers, as a result of the crash. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ alleged damages.