In February 2008, plaintiffs’ decedent Gurmit Singh, 33, a long-distance truck driver living near Seattle, was getting a ride from relatives on Highway 152 when he began acting up, got out of the vehicle and ran off. Singh was previously diagnosed with a bipolar disorder that he normally kept under control. However, while he was on a trip, he became upset and needed a ride from relatives. While in their car, Singh started acting irrationally, and then got out of the vehicle on Highway 152 and ran off in the dark. Shortly thereafter, Officer Eustaquio Rodriguez and a passerby saw Singh lying alongside the road and stopped their vehicles. After walking toward Singh and pulling out his gun, Rodriguez got a phone call from another officer, who stayed on the line until after gunshots were heard. Officers Stanford, Jaquez and Heath then drove up and found that Singh was shot. When the wounded Singh did not respond to commands to pull his arm out from under his body so he could be handcuffed, one of the responding officers applied a Taser to his leg. Singh was ultimately pronounced dead almost four hours later. Singh’s wife, Paramjit Kaur, acting individually and on behalf of her husband’s estate, and their minor daughter and son sued Rodriguez; Stanford; Jaquez; Heath; their supervisors, Police Chief Denise Turner and Police Captain Scot Smithee; and their employer the city of Gilroy. Singh’s family claimed that the actions of the responding officers (Rodriguez, Stanford, Jaquez and Heath) constituted excessive force and that they were also negligent for ignoring Singh’s medical needs. They further claimed that the city, Turner and Smithee were responsible for the negligence of the officers. The plaintiffs ultimately voluntarily dismissed Turner and Smithee prior to trial. The matter subsequently proceeded against the remaining defendants. The passerby who stopped at the scene around the same time as Rodriguez testified that both Singh and Rodriguez were both standing still at the time of the shooting. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that Rodriguez’s colleague reported that while he was on the phone with the officer, Rodriguez told him in a calm voice that he was all right and then, moments later and while still on the phone, the colleague heard gunshots. Plaintiffs’ counsel also pointed to Rodriguez’s testimony, during which he said he was carrying a Taser, a baton and pepper spray. Thus, counsel argued that Rodriguez could have used those rather than a gun to subdue Singh, if that was even necessary. The plaintiffs’ police practices expert opined that Rodriguez had sufficient time and opportunity to re-holster his service pistol after the initial contact, and could have then switched to a “less lethal” level of force. In addition, the plaintiffs’ non-retained expert, the coroner who performed the autopsy, testified that the bullet wound to the aorta was likely non-survivable, and that since there was no gun powder nor stippling on Singh’s skin, the muzzle of the gun must have been at least 3 to 4 feet away when the shots were fired. Defense counsel contended that the officers’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Rodriguez claimed that he was defending himself. He testified that Singh charged at him and was trying to take his gun when he shot the decedent in the chest. The defense’s police practices expert opined that had Rodriguez removed the flashlight that was mounted to his service pistol, per the plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony, and then re-holstered his weapon, the gun would have fallen out of holster during a struggle. The expert also did not believe that Rodriguez had any reasonable opportunity to attempt to re-holster his weapon or any obligation to do so. The defense’s police forensic reconstructionist testified that Singh’s body was at a pronounced 45 degree forward lean at the time that the bullets struck him, which would be suggestive of a person leaning forward with a hand out-stretched and possibly running., Singh was shot in the chest, causing the bullet to strike the aorta. He died approximately four hours later. Singh was 33. He was survived by his wife, a minor daughter and a minor son. Singh’s family sought recovery of wrongful death damages. The plaintiffs’ economist submitted a written report placing the value of Singh’s anticipated lifetime income, had he lived, and the loss of the value of his household services to the family at approximately $1.6 million.