In August 2011, plaintiffs Jay and Janice Hawley, a married couple, were showing their house on Hilltop Drive in La Jolla, which had been on the market for sale. The house was being shown to prospective buyers by the Hawleys’ real estate agent, Peggy Chodorow, while the Hawleys were away from the house. At approximately 5:30 p.m., Chodorow let the prospective buyers out through the front door, and left the security gate and front door open behind her when she re-entered the home. Shortly thereafter, when Chodorow returned to the front door to lock up the house, she was confronted by a man armed with an assault rifle. The man allegedly demanded cash and jewelry. According to Chodorow, she informed the armed man that she was the realtor and that she did not know where jewelry was kept. The man then took Chodorow to the master bedroom and ultimately fled the house with jewelry items. Upon exiting the property, the man was confronted by Mr. Hawley, who had coincidentally returned to the home with Mrs. Hawley. When Mr. Hawley realized the man had just robbed his home, a confrontation occurred that resulted in the man firing his weapon twice at him. Mr. Hawley was grazed in the face by one ricocheting bullet, and the man fled the scene. He was later arrested on multiple charges from multiple incidents. The Hawleys sued Chodorow; her agency, Team Chodorow Inc.; and the brokerage firm, Pickford Real Estate Inc. The Hawleys commenced a tort action for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, seeking damages arising out of the armed robbery. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Pickford and its agents, Chodorow and Team Chodorow, were negligent because Chodorow did not follow the instructions given to her by Mr. Hawley, who instructed her to close and lock the front security gate and front door to their home after showing it to prospective purchasers. Counsel contended that as a result of Chodorow’s negligent actions, the robber was allowed to gain access to the home, commit the robbery and harm the Hawleys. Defense counsel argued that Chodorow did not act negligently and that the intervening, superseding criminal act was unforeseeable. Chodorow admitted that the front door was left slightly open, but that it was a common occurrence during the showing of a house, outside of any negligence and within the standard of care for real estate practices. Pickford filed a cross-complaint against the Hawleys for breach of contract and equitable relief, contending that it suffered damages because the Hawleys did not properly secure the jewelry and did not obtain insurance to cover the loss., Mr. Hawley was taken to the emergency room after being grazed by the ricocheting bullet. He received sutures and healed well. Both Mr. Hawley and his wife claimed emotional distress from the incident, alleging they are now fearful to be inside the house, which they still inhabit. Thus, the Hawleys sought recovery of $200,000 in damages for the stolen jewelry. They also sought recovery of an unspecified amount in general damages. Defense counsel argued that the armed man was 100 percent at fault for causing the Hawleys’ alleged damages and that neither Chodorow nor her agency or Pickford were not responsible for causing the Hawleys’ any emotional distress. In addition, the defense’s expert appraiser opined that the jewelry that the Hawleys claimed was stolen was valued at roughly $25,000.