On March 26, 2010, plaintiff Jaishree Sheth, 58, a financial advisor, and her husband, plaintiff Prakash Sheth, 64, a retired chemist, both Indian citizens, were passengers in a Toyota Camry operated by Gamanial Shah, who was driving in the far right lane, the slow lane, of westbound Interstate 10, a three-lane freeway also known as Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway. When they were west of Beaumont, a tractor-trailer owned by Schneider National Carriers Inc. and operated by its employee, Jimmy Morgan, attempted to pass Shah’s Camry on the left by pulling out from the right lane and into the middle lane. After passing Shah’s vehicle, Morgan attempted to pull back into the right lane. However, a collision occurred, causing the Camry to spin out of control across the freeway and hit the median barrier. It was then struck by another vehicle, which was operated by Betty Jean Onley, who was in the left (fast) lane. The Camry then careened back across all three freeway lanes and over the freeway shoulder, coming to rest on the edge of a man-made wash with a 20-foot drop. Mrs. Sheth, who was seated in the backseat of the Camry behind Shah, was initially paralyzed from the accident. Mr. Sheth sustained contusions and soft-tissue . Mr. and Mrs. Sheth sued Morgan and Schneider National Carriers, as well as Shah and Onley. They alleged that Morgan, Shah and Onley were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles, and that Schneider National Carriers was vicariously liable for Morgan’s actions. Shah subsequently brought a cross-complaint against Morgan and Schneider National Carriers, while Morgan and Schneider National Carriers cross-complained against Shah. In addition, Onley brought a cross-complaint against Morgan, Schneider National Carriers and Shah for her in the accident. However, Onley was later dismissed as a defendant, as it was stipulated that she was not at fault, and she was made a plaintiff in the case. The Sheths claimed that Morgan was speeding, switched lanes and then improperly attempted to pass them at a high rate of speed in the middle lane, before negligently entering back into the right lane and striking the side of their vehicle. Thus, they claimed that Morgan was at fault for the collision by improperly attempting to pass Shah’s Camry and then attempting to pull back into the right lane when it was unsafe to do so. The plaintiffs’ and Shah’s experts testified that Morgan’s actions caused a PIT maneuver, or a type of pursuit tactic, to be applied to the Shah vehicle. They explained that this maneuver would cause a pursuing vehicle to force a fleeing vehicle to abruptly turn sideways, causing the driver to lose control and stop. Thus, they testified that Morgan’s actions caused the accident by causing Shah to lose control of his vehicle after it abruptly turned sideways. The Sheths’ counsel also noted that the defense admitted that Morgan was traveling at 60 mph, when the speed for trucks was 55 mph. Shah and Onley claimed that Morgan was tired, forgot that the Camry was next to him and moved into the vehicle. Onley was traveling to the left of the trailer. At deposition, Onley testified that the tractor-trailer stayed within its lane and did nothing wrong. However, her testimony was modified at trial to state that the tractor-trailer was going “straight enough for [her],” and the court did not allow her to testify as to whether she thought Morgan did anything wrong in his driving. Morgan, and his team driver wife, testified only by videotaped deposition because Morgan suffered two heart attacks unrelated to the accident and, as a result, had been in a coma for three weeks. The court did not allow the jury to be not told of his physical problems. Morgan claimed that Shah caused the accident by failing to be aware of his tractor-trailer in the adjacent lane. Morgan alleged he was sleeping until 3.5 hours before the accident, was alert and not tired. He claimed that while traveling in the right lane, he came upon a slower moving Shah vehicle, moved into the middle lane to continue past it and then ultimately moved back into the right lane. However, he claimed that when he was abreast of the Shah vehicle, the Camry spun out of control ahead of his tractor-trailer, spun across the other lanes and impacted the concrete median. Morgan claimed he then slowed and moved to the right some distance down the road, unsure whether he had been involved in the accident or not. He testified that he had no reason to change lanes at that point, as he would have “run over the little car.” Morgan’s counsel contended that Shah, an overly cautious 80-year-old driver, panicked when his passenger yelled at him about the approaching tractor-trailer and moved slightly to the right, glancing off the tractor and then over-steering, causing the Camry to spin out and result in additional impacts. Morgan’s counsel noted that Shah testified that he never looked in his rearview mirrors while driving and was unaware of any vehicles behind him. Counsel also noted that Shah testified that he required that his passengers not talk at all while he was driving so that he could pay attention to his driving. Counsel further noted that the skid marks attributed to Shah’s Camry, which were 11 feet into the Shah’s lane, were universally agreed by all experts to be from the right side Camry tires and could have been laid down in the absence of any prior impact. In addition, Morgan’s counsel called two independent witnesses, one of who was in front of the accident, and who testified that he looked in his rearview mirror and saw headlights moving right and then left and then into the median divider. Morgan’s counsel argued that this description was inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ and Shah’s experts, whose testimony and reconstruction claimed that a PIT maneuver was applied to the Shah vehicle. Morgan’s counsel argued that a PIT maneuver would not result in headlight movement to the right, only to the left. As for the other witness, who was trailing the accident, she drew a diagram in which she showed the tractor-trailer fully in its lane and the Camry moving into it. She also testified that the Camry bounced off the center divider and went between her vehicle and the back of the trailer, which was inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ and Shah’s experts, whose reconstruction had the Camry moving in front of the tractor due to locked-wheel braking. The California Highway Patrol could not find any tire marks at the scene that could be related to the tractor-trailer., At the time of the accident, the Sheth’s were visiting the United States from India and were on their way to the Orange County airport for a family vacation to Hawaii. In the crash, Mrs. Sheth suffered spinal cord , including a perched cervical fracture at the C5-6 level. She was subsequently transported by ambulance to Riverside Community Medical Center, where she was determined to be completely paralyzed and experienced respiratory failure. As a result, she requiring two emergency surgeries and remained hospitalized for one month. Mrs. Sheth was then transferred to Loma Linda University Medical Center for rehabilitation for another month. After surgery and rehabilitation, Mrs. Sheth was able to walk again and returned to Mumbai, India, where she continued her treatment. However, she still requires 24-hour attendant care and returned to the United States for the trial. Mr. Sheth sustained contusions and soft-tissue . He admitted he fully recovered in two months time and returned to India with his wife. However, he claimed he suffers emotional distress as a result of witnessing his wife’s severe . Mr. Sheth also sought recovery for loss of consortium. Onley claimed soft-tissue and shoulder , leading to a rotator cuff repair. She also claimed some loss of earnings and had to retire early from her job in the courthouse. Defense counsel attempted to present a five-minute surveillance film of Mrs. Sheth, obtained in December 2011 in Mumbai, India, in which she was shown walking without a cane, climbing stairs and getting into a car without assistance, all which Mrs. Sheth claimed she could not presently do. However, the court rejected the film. At trial, counsel for Schneider National Carriers argued that Mrs. Sheth should have her care in India at the cost in that country, since she is an Indian resident and citizen, and because all of her recommended health care was available in India. However, defense counsel noted that the court allowed the Sheths’ counsel to present evidence of the cost of medical care in the United States on the basis that Mrs. Sheth should not be limited to available care in her home country of India, but should be allowed to come to the U.S. to “optimize” her medical care. As such, defense counsel noted that the life care plan Mrs. Sheth presented included the cost of roundtrip business class airfare, a rental car, hotel and meals in the U.S., etc. Additionally, defense counsel noted that the court prevented the them from arguing in closing arguments that the jury should consider that the Sheths were citizens of India, the life style in India, and the cost of living in India when assessing non-economic damages of pain and suffering, inconvenience, etc.