On Feb. 1, 2013, plaintiff Camaree Ashby, 44, a substitute teacher, was operating a Chevrolet sedan with her minor daughter, Sara, in the back seat and plaintiff Kevin Thurman, 35, an entrepreneur, in the front seat. The vehicle was stopped on southbound Presidio Street at the intersection of Washington Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, when their vehicle was rear-ended by a non-party vehicle that was also previously stopped. The non-party vehicle was rear-ended by a BMW sedan operated by Turner Grant. The force of the initial collision caused the non-party vehicle to rear-end Ashby’s stopped vehicle, causing about $500 in damage to Ashby’s bumper. Ashby, her daughter and Thurman each claimed various soft-tissue . Camaree Ashby, Mikel Ashby (Sara’s guardian ad litem), and Thurman sued Turner Grant (who was erroneously sued as Matthew Grant Turner). The Ashbys and Thurman alleged that Grant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Grant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Specifically, counsel contended that Ms. Ashby, Thurman and one percipient witness testified that they believed Grant was intoxicated at the time of the crash because his breath smelled like alcohol and because he exhibited watery eyes, slurred speech, evasiveness, and poor balance. Ms. Ashby, Thurman and the witness claimed that as a result, they instructed Grant to remain at the scene and to not to drive. However, Grant ultimately left the scene after the accident. Grant denied being intoxicated at the time of the accident and contended that he had not consumed any alcohol that day. He also claimed that he had a right to leave the scene because he had already provided the plaintiffs with his information after the collision. Defense counsel noted that there was no police report nor was there a blood test performed., Ms. Ashby, Sara, and Thurman claimed that they each sustained minor soft-tissue strains to their spine. They subsequently presented to their respective primary care physicians. Ms. Ashby and her daughter sought chiropractic treatment for their alleged in Nevada, while Thurman received no treatment after his initial visit to his doctor. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not call any healthcare providers to testify. The plaintiffs claimed that their ultimately healed, so they did not require any future treatment. Thus, they sought recovery for their respective medical expenses, but did not claim any future medical expenses. Ms. Ashby also sought recovery for her past wage loss, and for her and her daughter’s past pain and suffering. In addition, the plaintiffs sought recovery of punitive damages, alleging that Grant willfully and maliciously left the scene of the accident despite knowing that they were injured.