On June 1, 2010, plaintiff Edith Torres, 23, an office worker, was driving her 2008 Toyota Yaris north on Weber Avenue in Fresno, along with a right, front-seat passenger, plaintiff Jeremiah Miller, an unemployed 22 year old. As they entered the intersection with Lansing Way, their vehicle was struck by a 2006 Hyudai Sonata operated by Laurie Zaninovich, who was traveling west on Lansing Way. The collision resulted in both vehicles being towed from the scene, and the Torres vehicle was determined to be a total loss. Torres and Miller sued Zaninovich and the believe owner of the vehicle, Sandy Patterson. They alleged that Zaninovich was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Patterson was vicariously liable for her actions. However, Patterson was ultimately dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Zaninovich had a stop sign failed to yield the right of way to the Torres vehicle, causing the collision. Zaninovich conceded liability at trial., Later on the date of the accident, Torres and Miller separately presented to Fresno Community Hospital, where they were each diagnosed with soft-tissue to their back and neck, treated and released the same day. They both then began treatment with their chiropractic expert on June 14, 2010, and continued with treatment until Oct. 13, 2010. During that time, specifically in June 2010 and July 2010, Torres and Miller also had two visits to their expert in general medicine. Torres and Miller each claimed occasional, ongoing, residual neck pain, but acknowledged that they did not suffer any wage loss or have any limitation of their activities. However, before trial, Torres and Miller each visited their expert orthopedic surgeon twice and underwent MRIs of the cervical spine. The plaintiffs’ orthopedic surgery expert opined that it was reasonable to believe that both Torres and Miller would have ongoing residuals, including occasional neck pain, as a result of the 2010 motor vehicle collision. Thus, Torres and Miller each sought recovery of damages for their medical expenses, and past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that neither plaintiff sustained any significant , and disputed the damages alleged.