On April 3, 2010, at around 4 a.m., plaintiffs’ decedent Jennifer Jaime, 10, was a front seat passenger in a vehicle operated by her father, plaintiff Francisco Jaime. While they were traveling in the northbound lane of U.S. Highway 101, near Clark Avenue in Santa Maria, a vehicle traveling south in the northbound lane struck the Jaime vehicle. As a result, Mr. Jaime lost control of his vehicle, causing it to go through the center median and flip onto its roof across the southbound lanes. During the accident, Jennifer was thrown from the vehicle and run over by a passing vehicle. Jennifer later died from her at a hospital. Jennifer’s mother, Norma Viveros, sued the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the believed operator of the vehicle that caused the initial impact, Antonio Betancourt. Mr. Jaime also brought a separate action against Betancourt and Caltrans, but the matters were ultimately consolidated. Caltrans subsequently brought a cross-claim against Betancourt and a counterclaim against Mr. Jaime. The matters then proceeded to a bench trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Betancourt was intoxicated and driving on the wrong side of the road. Thus, counsel contended that Betancourt was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and caused the collision that resulted in Jennifer’s wrongful death. Plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that Caltrans failed to install a median barrier at the subject location, creating a dangerous condition of public property. Caltrans’ counsel argued that the sole cause of the accident was Betancourt, who was intoxicated and traveling the wrong way. Counsel contended that Betancourt was a known drunken driver who had fled the country and that Jennifer was unbelted in the front seat of Mr. Jaime’s vehicle. Counsel also contended that Mr. Jamie was driving a vehicle that was both unregistered and uninsured. In addition, Caltrans’ counsel argued that there is no roadway condition at the subject location that caused or contributed to the accident and that, therefore, the state is entitled to immunity. Caltrans’ counsel explained that the cause of action was barred by the design immunity statute (Government Code § 830.6) and that legislature has specifically granted immunity to the state for the types of allegations similar to those in this matter. Counsel contended that, as set forth in Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66, there must be a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; there must be discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and there must be substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design. Thus, Caltrans’ counsel made a prima facie showing that the property was created by construction in accordance with a plan or design of construction; that said plan or design was approved in advance of construction by an employee of the public entity vested with discretionary authority to approve the plan or design; that the plan or design was prepared in conformity with standards previously approved; and that the approvals were reasonable. Betancourt could not be located and it is believed that he left the country., Jennifer was thrown from her father’s vehicle and then run over by a passing vehicle, resulting in multiple traumatic . She was subsequently brought to a hospital, were she later died from her . Jennifer was survived by her parents. Thus, Jennifer’s parents sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of their only daughter.