At approximately 12:21 p.m. on Aug. 2, 2013, plaintiff Kristin Harris, 55, a personal assistant/caretaker, was a passenger in a 2012 Ford Transit courtesy van, which was owned by Simi Valley Ford and operated by Victor Oliva, when they were involved in a collision in an intersection in Simi Valley. Oliva had previously picked up Harris in the courtesy van to transport her to Simi Valley Ford, where Harris’ client’s vehicle was being serviced. However, on the way to the dealership, Oliva ran a red light, causing a 2000 Chevy S-10 pickup truck operated by Matthew Hunter to collide with the front, driver’s side of the courtesy van. Harris, who was seated in the rear, passenger’s side seat of the courtesy van, claimed that she struck the left side of her face and lost consciousness as a result of the collision. Harris sued Oliva; Oliva’s employer, the operator of Simi Valley Ford, Ford of Simi Valley Inc.; and Hunter. Harris alleged that Oliva and Hunter were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles. Harris also alleged that Ford of Simi Valley was vicariously liable for Oliva’s actions while in the course and scope of his employment and was negligent for the entrustment of the van to Oliva, alleging that Oliva was not adequately trained to operate the dealership shuttle. Hunter agreed to settle prior to trial, and both Oliva and Ford of Simi Valley admitted liability. Thus, the matter proceeded to a trial on damages, as Oliva and Ford of Simi Valley had challenged the nature and extent of Harris’ alleged ., Harris claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury; to the cervical spine at the C5-6 and C6-7 levels; an injury to the lumbar spine at the L4-5 level; to the left side of her face, which included a contusion and laceration; and soft tissue to her shoulders, right hip, and right, dominant elbow. She subsequently underwent an anterior discectomy with decompression and artificial disc replacement at the C5-6 level on April 16, 2016. However, the surgery allegedly failed, resulting in the need for a second surgery on June 15, 2016, which included the removal of the artificial disc replacement at C5-6, revision of the decompression and anterior cervical discectomy, a fusion at C5-6, and an anterior discectomy and fusion at C6-7. Harris claimed the surgeries were necessary because of the accident. Harris claimed that she is left with headaches, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and short-term memory issues. She also claimed her cervical and lumbar left her with radiating pain and numbness, causing her to have difficulty with fine motor skills and holding onto objects. She further claimed that as a complication of the cervical spine fusion, the nerve to her vocal cord was injured, causing her difficulty with speaking, and swallowing food and liquids. Harris alleged that because of the complications related to her vocal cord injury, she would require future medical treatment, including injections and a possible surgery. In addition, she alleged that she would require other extensive future medical treatment, including additional surgery on her cervical spine. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering expert testified that Harris’ head struck the seat in front of her with 600 pounds of force and that the force was sufficient to cause a brain injury. Harris’ treating neurologist and neuropsychologist both testified that Harris sustained a mild traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. Harris’ neuropsychologist further opined that Harris suffered a neurocognitive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and personality changes due to a traumatic brain injury. Harris’s treating surgeons, including her treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jacob Tauber, all opined that the cervical spine surgeries were related to the accident, and Harris’ treating neurosurgeon, Dr. Graham Mouw, testified that Harris would eventually require an additional cervical fusion. Harris did not have health insurance at the time of the accident and the majority of her medical treatment was performed on a lien basis. Harris’ expert life care planner testified that Harris’ medical bills totaled $523,840.77 and that the customary and reasonable value of those bills totaled $493,099.27. Thus, the expert’s future life care plan for Harris totaled approximately $1.5 million. At the conclusion of trial, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Harris just under $7 million in total damages. During closing arguments, Harris’ counsel argued that, “Anybody in this community could have been in [Ms. Harris’] situation,” and that the defendants failed to do “the right thing” because they waited until trial to “take responsibility” and admit liability. Counsel also asked the jury to return a verdict that would “send a message,” allow them to say “as a member of this community, Ms. Harris deserved more,” and allow them to walk out of the courtroom “as a community saying we’re not going to tolerate what happened.” Counsel further argued that, “If you don’t stop it with your verdict, and you give anything less than full and fair compensation to Ms. Harris, no one learns anything” and “it’s going to continue.” The defense’s accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering expert opined that Harris’ face did not strike the back of the front, passenger seat as a result of the accident. He also opined that the forces involved in the crash were not sufficient to produce a traumatic brain injury. The defense’s expert neurologist opined that Harris did not sustain a traumatic brain injury, concussion, post-concussive syndrome, or post-traumatic headache as a result of the collision. He also opined that Harris’ cognitive complaints clearly predated the accident. The defense’s expert neuropsychologist testified that the findings of the emergency medical technicians and the emergency room doctor who treated Harris following the crash were consistent with the opinion that Harris did not sustain a traumatic brain injury. The expert further opined that, assuming Harris did sustain a traumatic brain injury, it would have been classified as an uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury, at worst, which would have resolved within three to six months. The defense’s orthopedic and neurosurgery experts opined that Harris sustained a strain to the neck and lower back as a result of the impact and that neither of Harris’ surgeries was related to the crash. The experts also testified that the only reasonable and necessary treatment Harris received following the collision occurred up to her first treatment with one of her treating physicians in June 2014 and that Harris would only require conservative treatment in the future. The defense’s expert life care planner testified that the customary and reasonable value for all of the medical bills Harris attributed to the crash totaled approximately $233,301.10 and that the mid-range value of the reasonable value of Harris’ medical bills up to June 2014 was $7,801.24. The defense’s expert economist testified that the present value of the conservative treatment that Harris would require in the future, as opined by the defense’s medical experts, totaled only $29,300. Thus, defense counsel told the jury that if it believed all of Harris’ injury claims, a fair and reasonable verdict would be $362,000 or less.