On June 27, 2015, plaintiff Crystal Ruiz, a pregnant 17-year-old woman, was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother, plaintiff Elvira Ruiz. As they were traveling on northbound U.S. Route 101, also known as the Bayshore Freeway, in Santa Clara, their vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Michael Eddens. Crystal Ruiz claimed to her back. Eddens fled the scene, but Elvira Ruiz reported the incident to a responding police officer, who took the Ruizes’ statements as to what the vehicle that struck them looked like, as well as noted an imprint of a license plate on the Ruizes’ vehicle. The officer was able to reverse the image of the imprint and use a special light to detect the license plate number, which was traced back to Star Auto Parts Inc., Metropolitan Automotive Warehouse Inc. and Parts Authority Metro LLC, which were all companies operated by Eddens. The officer’s investigation also uncovered a vehicle log, which stated that the individual that was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident was Eddens. The Ruizes sued Eddens, Metropolitan Automotive Warehouse Inc., Parts Authority Metro LLC and Star Auto Parts Inc. The lawsuit alleged that Eddens was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that Metropolitan Automotive Warehouse, Parts Authority Metro and Star Auto Parts were vicariously liable for Eddens’ actions. Elvira Ruiz was ultimately removed from the case as a plaintiff. The matter only continued with Crystal Ruiz’s claims against the defendants. The defendants were sanctioned, and they ultimately admitted liability., Crystal Ruiz claimed she sustained a herniated lumbar disc, which impinged her nerve and resulted in radiculopathy down her leg. She was taken to an emergency room, where she was treated and released. She then underwent chiropractic treatment until she gave birth. After her delivery, Ruiz continued treatment at a Kaiser facility, but she claimed she lost coverage and had to have the medical costs placed on liens. Ultimately, she underwent a lumbar discectomy, which was performed by her treating neurosurgeon. Ruiz claimed that she continues to suffer back pain, but not the same pain as she had before, and that her leg pain had resolved. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Ruiz had immediate pain the day of the accident and that Ruiz had a positive straight leg test, which was performed by the plaintiff’s treating chiropractor and which indicated that Ruiz was injured. However, counsel noted that Ruiz’s treating chiropractor had notes that stated that Ruiz was asymptomatic, but that his exam showed that Ruiz was still symptomatic. Ruiz’s treating orthopedic surgeon opined that Ruiz would need a lumbar fusion at some point in the future. Ruiz sought recovery for her past and future medical costs, and for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that the impact of the collision was minor and could not have caused Ruiz’s alleged . The defense’s expert orthopedist opined that Ruiz only sustained soft tissue in the collision and did not sustain a lumbar disc herniation. The expert also opined that Ruiz’s back pain was due to her weight and was not caused by the subject accident. The expert further opined that Ruiz’s surgery was unnecessary and that Ruiz did not require any future surgery.