On Feb. 19, 2007, plaintiff Loraine Wong, 49, a business development employee, was driving on Santa Clara Avenue with her daughters, plaintiff Kendall Ng, 10, and plaintiffs’ decedent Sydney Ng, 8, in the backseat of her car. As she approached a stop sign at the intersection with Woodside Road, also known as State Route 84, a few blocks away from her home in Redwood City, she was speaking on her handheld cell phone. Wong stopped at the stop sign and then began making a left turn when her vehicle was broadsided by a vehicle operated by Richard Tom, who was traveling eastbound on Woodside Road, which does not have a stop sign and has the right-of-way. Sydney was killed in the crash, and Wong and Kendall were injured. Wong, acting individually and on behalf of Sydney, and Wong’s husband, Mark Ng, acting as the father of Kendall and Sydney, sued Tom. They alleged that Tom was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and caused Sydney’s wrongful death. Wong also brought causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and for her own , while Ng brought a cause of action for Kendall’s personal . Wong claimed that she did not see any oncoming traffic before attempting to make the left turn at the intersection. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Tom was going at least 67 mph at the time of the crash and that information from his vehicle’s diagnostic recording system showed that he was going up to 85 mph within one kilometer of impact. They also argued that Wong’s failure to see Tom’s vehicle was not negligent because Tom was so far away from the intersection when she pulled out that, had he been going the speed limit, he would not have been an immediate hazard. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that Tom’s blood alcohol was between 0.09 percent and a 0.10 percent at the time of the accident. Following the crash, Tom was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence causing harm to another, and driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher causing harm to another. Tom pleaded not guilty to all charges. The jury in that criminal case acquitted Tom on all alcohol-related charges, but returned a verdict of guilty on the lesser offense of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Tom was subsequently sentenced to seven years in prison for gross vehicular manslaughter and causing great bodily injury. However, the appellate court recently overturned the 2009 conviction because it found the prosecutor violated Tom’s rights when she told jurors Tom proved himself guilty by not asking about the welfare of the other car’s occupants. As a result, the Attorney General’s Office challenged the reversal and the California Supreme Court agreed to review whether Tom’s right against self-incrimination was violated with the prosecutor’s argument that his silence was “substantive evidence of guilt.” Defense counsel noted that due to the pending appeal of his criminal conviction, Tom had to plead the Fifth Amendment at the civil trial and did not testify in front of the civil jury. Additionally, counsel noted that because of the pending criminal appeal, Tom could not admit negligence. However, defense counsel did not dispute that Tom was negligent, and argued that Wong was comparatively negligent. Counsel contended that Wong was negligent for being on her handheld cell phone and never seeing Tom’s car before pulling out into his path despite her testimony that she had a clear view all the way to the intersection of Alameda de Las Pulgas and Woodside Road, where Tom was coming from. Tom and his expert in accident reconstruction claimed that Tom was going about 50 mph, which is consistent with the flow of traffic on Woodside Road. Tom also claimed that he had the right-of-way and that he was so close to the intersection when Wong pulled out that he did not have time to react. However, he admitted that he had been drinking before the crash, but argued that his blood alcohol content was less than a 0.05 percent. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that the defense’s accident reconstruction expert violated motions in limine and as a result, portions of his testimony were stricken., Wong, Kendall and Sydney were all taken to the Stanford University Hospital Emergency Department. Resuscitative efforts were undertaken at the hospital, but Sydney was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. She was 8 years old. She left behind her parents and a 10-year-old sister. Wong sustained a fractured rib, a shoulder sprain, a hip contusion, flank bruising, a pinky fracture and burns to the face. All of her physical ultimately resolved. However, she claimed she suffers from emotional distress, as she was aware of Sydney’s and present at the time of her death. Kendall sustained a facial laceration and scarring, a fractured arm and resolved neurological symptoms in the right leg and neck. All of her physical resolved, but she is left with a scar on her forehead. The family sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of Sydney. Wong, Kendall and Sydney also sought recovery of non-economic damages for their , and Wong’s husband brought a derivative claim, seeking recovery for his loss of consortium.