On May 5, 2010, plaintiffs’ decedent Hien Dac Le, 74, was walking on eastbound Florence Avenue, toward the intersection with Ward Street, in the city of Garden Grove. Prior to that date, the city of Garden Grove, through its contractor, Macadee Electrical Construction, installed pedestrian signal poles, as part of the “Safe Passages to School Act,” in close proximity to the accident scene. The poles were installed approximately 30 feet south of the existing marked crosswalk, as a new crosswalk was going to be relocated closer to the signal poles once energized. While waiting to be energized, the signal poles were required to be completely covered so as to advise motorists and pedestrians they were non-operational. As of May 5, 2010, the poles had remained in place for approximately six weeks without being energized. As a result, the existing crosswalk had not been relocated to its new location. However, one of the cardboard coverings had fallen off the signal head that was facing oncoming northbound traffic. At approximately 4 p.m. on May 5, 2013, while traversing a marked crosswalk at the intersection of Ward Street, Hien Dac Le was struck and killed by a vehicle operated by Tam Van Le, who was traveling on northbound Ward Street. The decedent’s wife, Thanh Nguyen, and their children, Thao Le, Tammy Le, Hien Duc Le (older), Hao Le, Hien Duc Le (younger), and Hai Duc Le, sued Tam Van Le, the city of Garden Grove and Macadee Electrical Construction. The decedent’s family alleged that Tam Van Le was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. They also alleged that Garden Grove and Macadee Electrical were negligent in the installation of signal poles, creating a dangerous condition of public property. Prior to trial, Tam Van Le pled guilty to felony manslaughter. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the accident area constituted a dangerous condition at the time of the accident, as the signal poles should have been energized within a few days of them being installed. Counsel also contended that the uncovered signal head was confusing and a distraction to motorists and that having the poles erected without moving the existing crosswalk made the area inherently dangerous. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Macadee Electrical was negligent for failing to perform routine inspections of the signal poles and for not properly coordinating with Southern California Edison in getting them timely energized. Counsel also contended there should have been daily inspections of the covered signal heads. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that as a result, Tam Van Le failed to bring his vehicle to a stop at the existing marked crosswalk, despite there being a car stopped at the crosswalk in a left turn pocket. Tam Van Le made identical arguments against both the city and Macadee Electrical. He claimed that while approaching the accident area, his attention was diverted from the roadway to the uncovered signal head facing his direction of travel, resulting in him being unable to stop in time before striking the decedent. Counsel for the city and Macadee Electrical argued that the presence of the inoperative pedestrian signal poles did not cause or contribute to the accident. They contended that Tam Van Le should have stopped, or at least began to slow down his vehicle, upon seeing a car stopped at the marked crosswalk, regardless of whether the stopped vehicle was in a left turn pocket. Counsel for the city and Macadee Electrical also contended that the uncovered signal head was not a distraction to Tam Van Le and that the accident area, even if deemed to be dangerous, was not a substantial factor in causing the subject accident. In addition, Macadee Electrical’s counsel argued that weekly inspections were unreasonable since there was no active construction going on at the time of the accident. Counsel for the city and Macadee Electrical called the investigating officer, who testified that Tam Van Le never mentioned the uncovered signal when interviewed after the accident. The officer also did not note the signal head as a factor in causing the accident. Counsel also noted that Tam Van Le testified at his deposition that he was not distracted nor was his attention drawn away from the road at the time of the collision, and that he did not remember (at deposition) if the signal head cover was on or off at the time of the accident., Hien Dac Le sustained multiple traumatic in the accident and ultimately died. He was 74 years old. The decedent is survived by his wife and six children. The decedent’s wife and children asked the jury to award $23 million in total non-economic wrongful death damages, which consisted of $5 million for the decedent’s wife and $3 million for each of the decedent’s adult children.