On June 14, 2017, plaintiff Joshua Hernandez, 17, a student, was a passenger in a vehicle that was westbound on Southern Avenue, in South Gate. As his vehicle entered the intersection with Long Beach Boulevard, it was broadsided by a tractor-trailer operated by Nathan Harris, which entered the intersection from southbound Long Beach Boulevard. Joshua sustained to his head. Joshua, by and through his guardian ad litem, Dalia Gamboa, sued Harris; Harris’ employers that owned the tractor-trailer, Phenix Transportation West Inc. and Phenix Transportation Inc.; the shipper of the goods that was loaded in the tractor-trailer, Peco Foods Inc.; and the alleged owner of the Phenix companies, Daphne Wilkerson. Joshua alleged that Harris was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the remaining defendants were vicariously liable for Harris’ actions. Peco Foods was an independent contractor that was alleged to be vicariously liable on legal doctrines. However, its motion for demurrer was sustained. In addition, Wilkerson was dismissed from the case. Thus, the matter only proceeded to trial against Harris, Phenix Transportation West Inc. and Phenix Transportation Inc. Harris and the Phenix companies ultimately accepted liability just before trial., Joshua was taken by ambulance from the scene of the accident and brought to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. He remained in the hospital for 10 days and was then transferred to another hospital, where he remained for many months. Although Joshua does have cognitive function, he claimed he is not able to perform many activities himself. He alleged that he will require full-time care for the rest of his life. The plaintiff’s neurology expert described the anatomical nature and extent of Joshua’s , as well as the alleged need for future care. The plaintiff’s physical medicine and rehabilitation expert, who was also a life care planner, described Joshua’s alleged future medical care and other needs, as well Joshua’s alleged life expectancy. The expert also presented supporting evidence for her conclusions and a life care plan that set forth all of Joshua’s alleged future needs. The plaintiff’s expert economist utilized the life care plan, as well as loss-of-earnings calculations, and converted them to present day values. Joshua was not employed at the time of the accident, and the economic report that was prepared by the plaintiff’s expert economist outlined the economic damages Joshua allegedly suffered, the amounts of which were not disputed. Joshua sought recovery of past and future medical costs, future loss of earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. The parties ultimately stipulated to Joshua’s past medical expenses and past economic damages. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of Joshua’s . Counsel also disputed Joshua’s life care plan and the conclusions made by the plaintiff’s expert economist.