At around 2 a.m. on July 24, 2013, plaintiffs’ decedent Karina Preza, 34, a stay-at-home mother, was en route to pick up her common law husband from work. As she exited from an alley and entered El Segundo Boulevard, in the city of Hawthorne, Preza’s vehicle was broadsided by a Hawthorne Police Department police cruiser, operated by Sergeant Stephen Colquette. At the time of the collision, Colquette and a number of other officers from the Hawthorne Police Department, Gardena Police Department, and California Highway Patrol were responding to a motor vehicle accident involving a pedestrian near the border of Hawthorne and Gardena. The impact from Colquette’s police cruiser split Preza’s vehicle in half and caused multiple traumatic to Preza. She was subsequently taken to Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, in Torrance, where she succumbed to her that day. The decedent’s parents, Samuel and Anselma Preza, and three minor sons, Carlos S. Cerna, Anthony Cerna and Dominic Cerna, sued Colquette and his employer, the city of Hawthorne. The decedent’s family alleged that Colquette was negligent in the operation of the police cruiser and that the city was vicariously liable for Colquette’s actions as his employer and owner of the vehicle. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that, based upon a thorough investigation by the California Highway Patrol’s Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team; the dash cameras of Colquette and other officer’s vehicles; the video surveillance footage captured from a number of businesses on El Segundo Boulevard; the interviews of Colquette and others; and the depositions of Colquette and Hawthorne representatives, Colquette reached speeds in excess of 80 mph and collided into the decedent’s vehicle at a speed of approximately 61 mph, causing fatal . Counsel also maintained that Colquette was traveling in excess of 80 mph without any emergency lights or sirens activated. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that while all of the other officers responded Code 3, activating their forward facing emergency lights, Colquette was trailing about a half a mile behind the other vehicles and made the conscious decision to not activate his emergency lights. Counsel further contended that Colquette was an officer with prior disciplinary actions who was involved in other prior automobile collisions. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that Colquette’s negligence and recklessness killed the decedent. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the city pick an individual to testify on specified subjects on behalf of the city. The person most knowledgeable testified that exceeding the speed limit is unsafe and that Hawthorne Police Department’s policy does not permit exceeding the speed limit, except when proceeding Code 3. In addition, counsel noted that California Highway Patrol’s Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team also reached the conclusion that Colquette’s actions were illegal and the primary cause of the collision. Defense counsel asserted that the decedent caused the accident by entering the roadway from an alley when it was not clear to do so. Counsel also contended that Colquette had never been disciplined for his driving and has been, and is, an exemplary officer. Counsel further contended that Colquette’s prior accident was a minor fender bender, which is not uncommon where an officer is driving for entire shifts on a daily patrol. Defense counsel maintained that, based upon the six-lane width of El Segundo Boulevard, the absence of traffic on the boulevard at 2 a.m., and the largely commercial nature of the area at a time businesses were not open, Colquette believed that the activation of his emergency lights and siren were unnecessary and that based upon the circumstances, he was traveling at a speed that was not unsafe. Colquette denied any negligence in causing the collision and claimed the decedent was negligent in failing to yield to his vehicle. He also disagreed with the city’s person most knowledgeable, and claimed he did not violate the law or the Hawthorne Police Department’s policies and procedures at the time of the collision. In particular, Colquette claimed that driving twice the posted speed limit on El Segundo Boulevard, in excess of 80 mph, was at a speed that he believed was safe for the conditions on the roadway at the time., Karina Preza sustained multiple traumatic in the accident and taken to Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, in Torrance, where she died later that day. She was 34 years old and is survived by her parents, Samuel and Anselma Preza, and her minor sons, Carlos (age 13), Anthony (age 5), and Dominic (age 1). Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the decedent was a stay-at-home mom who tended to her three minor children and that the decedent’s domestic partner, Carlos Cerna, was a commercial truck driver who relied on the decedent for the parenting of his children. Counsel also contended that of the decedent’s three minor children, Anthony is a special needs child who was diagnosed with Autism and Dominic was diagnosed with a learning disability. Counsel further contended that Anthony’s life care plan was estimated to be at $10 million. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that Mr. Cerna could not return to work after the death of his common law wife and now dedicates his time trying to take care of his children. Mr. Cerna claimed that he is doing his best, but that he is not a replacement for his children’s mother. Mr. Cerna and his oldest son also testified to the gravity of the loss of the decedent’s love, comfort, affection, society, and moral support. Given the age of the children, there was a pending motion for preference filed. In light of this motion, which the parties understood must be granted, the parties expedited discovery so as to be prepared for the preference trial date. Defense counsel asserted that the decedent’s fatal were caused by her failure to wear a seat belt. However, counsel contended that, regardless, the accident was nothing less than a tragic event that Colquette will live with the rest of his life.