At around 10:30 p.m. on April 23, 2016, plaintiffs’ decedent Christopher Ricci, 53, a logistics and distribution employee for a national food company, was walking with his wife, plaintiff Sarah Ingebritsen, 53, along the north side of San Carlos Avenue, in San Carlos. When they were approximately 55 feet west of Arundel Road, heading west, Ricci was struck by a vehicle operated by Randall Rubingh. Their minor son, plaintiff Charles Ricci, 18, a high school student, had just seen his parents walking behind him when he heard the accident from inside their home just yards away. Mr. Ricci died at the scene. Ingebritsen (acting individually, on behalf of her minor son, Charles, and as representative of her husband’s estate) and her daughter, Eden Ricci, sued Rubingh, the city of San Carlos, the county of San Mateo, and the state of California (Department of Transportation). The decedent’s family alleged that Rubingh was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the remaining defendants were negligent for failing to repair the roadway’s dangerous condition. The county and the state were ultimate dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter continued against Rubingh and the city only. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that Rubingh was convicted for driving under the influence at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that for more than 10 years, the city knew about the serious problems with pedestrian safety on San Carlos Avenue, both west and east of the point of impact, including near a school. Counsel contended that the city knew that San Carlos Avenue was not safe because of the lack of sidewalks, the excessive speeds of vehicles, the lack of adequate lighting, the inadequate site distance, the lack of adequate traffic calming measures and signage, and the dangerous curvature of the road that caused vehicles to veer into the bike lane where pedestrians were forced to travel. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the dangerous condition of public property was a substantial factor in causing the incident and that the city had created the dangerous condition when extending the left turn lane and installing a bike lane in 2003. To accommodate the lane changes, the city narrowed the westbound lane and restriped the roadway, which left less room for vehicles and pedestrians, and pushed vehicular traffic toward the bicycle lane and shoulder where the incident occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the fact that vehicles were being directed toward the bicycle lane and shoulder was known because the bicycle lane markings were visibly worn in the area of impact. Counsel contended that the city also knew that lighting and speeding vehicles were a problem prior to the incident. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the city had time to fix the dangerous condition, but failed to do so., Ingebritsen and Mr. Ricci had been at a neighbor’s house, just a block and a half away from their home prior to the accident. They were walking home, hand-in-hand, when Mr. Ricci was struck from behind and thrown to the ground in front of his wife. Their son, Charles, was playing basketball with his friends at a neighborhood school and saw his parents at a distance as he returned home. He claimed he heard the crash, looked out the window and saw his mother hovering over his father. Mr. Ricci, 53, died at the scene as a result of his . He was survived by his wife, Sarah Ingebritsen (then 53), his son, Charles Ricci (an 18-year-old high school student), and his daughter, Eden Ricci (a 20-year-old college student). Ingebritsen and Charles claimed they suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident. The decedent’s family sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of a father and husband. They also sought recovery of their past and future loss of Mr. Ricci’s earnings, loss of household services, loss of gifts, and funeral expenses. Ingebritsen and Charles sought recovery of damages for the negligent infliction of their emotional distress and recovery of medical costs for their psychological treatment.