On Dec. 27, 2010, shortly before 6 a.m., plaintiffs’ decedent Dennis Schenk, 55, a computer analyst, was driving in the far left northbound lane of Beach Boulevard in the city of Stanton. As he approached the intersection with Catherine Avenue, he came upon the rear of a large, 20,000-pound street sweeper operated by Alejandro Pena in the course of his employment (cleaning public streets) with Joe’s Sweeping Inc., protruding into his lane of traffic. As a result, Schenk turned his car to the right to avoid impact, but ended up hitting the street sweeper with the driver’s side roof and windshield of his vehicle. Prior to the collision, Pena was in the process of sweeping the far left lane of northbound Beach Boulevard, along the median that divides northbound from southbound traffic. While it was still dark out, Pena approached the intersection of Catherine Avenue and made a large, sweeping, allegedly illegal right-hand circular turn from the left lane of northbound Beach Boulevard. Specifically, Pena had crossed all four lanes of travel on Beach Boulevard, turned onto Catherine Avenue, and then continued turning until he was facing westbound on Catherine Avenue. After completing the circular turn, Pena entered the intersection and stopped or significantly slowed the street sweeper along the median in order to activate the sweeper. However, the rear portion of the street sweeper was left sticking out into the far left lane of northbound Beach Boulevard, blocking traffic. As a result, Schenk failed to recognize the rear of the street sweeper protruding into his lane until he was close to it, causing him to make a sudden right turn in an attempt to avoid impact. While the bumper and engine of Schenk’s vehicle passed essentially unscathed under the upraised, left, rear side of the street sweeper, all of the forces of impact were focused on the driver’s side “A” pillar, the windshield, roof and the driver’s non-encroachment zone of safety, causing Schenk to be struck in the head and sustained blunt force trauma. He ultimately died due to the skull fractures, contusions and laceration of the brain that he sustained in the crash. The decedent’s parents, Delmar and Marlys Schenk, sued Pena; Pena’s employer, Joe’s Street Sweeping Inc.; a division of the employer, Nationwide Environmental Services; and the entity that hired Joe’s Street Sweeping, the city of Stanton. The decedent’s parents alleged that Pena was negligent in the operation of the street sweeper, and that Joe’s Street Sweeping, Nationwide Environmental Services and the city were vicariously liable for Pena’s actions. It was ultimately determined that the city was indemnified by Joe’s Street Sweeping, per a contractual agreement, and that Nationwide Environmental Services was just another name for Joe’s Street Sweeping. Pena was also deemed to be an insured under Joe’s Street Sweeping’s policy. The matter then proceeded to mediation. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the subject street sweeper has ample lights and large reflectors on the rear to warn approaching vehicles at night, but that there are no lights and only a few small reflectors on the side of the street sweeper to alert a driver of its presence when positioned across the roadway, as it was during the accident. Counsel also contended that Pena made an illegal, large and unconscionable turn, which caused the street sweeper to block traffic on the far left lane of northbound Beach Boulevard, resulting in the fatal collision. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that at the scene of the accident, Pena initially lied to the police about the path of his street sweeper and did not admit to the large, sweeping, illegal turn until his supervisor arrived at the scene and pointed out the street sweeping marks in the roadway, showing the true path of Pena’s vehicle. Counsel also contended that it was only at that time that Pena admitted to the illegal maneuver and told police that he had lied because he knew it was illegal and against company policy to make such a maneuver. Plaintiffs’ counsel further contended that Pena’s supervisor told the police that he had encountered problems with Pena before and that Pena had lied to him in the past. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel used these statements to the police as the basis to maintain a claim of punitive damages against Pena and Joe’s Street Sweeping. Defense counsel brought several motions to strike plaintiffs’ counsel’s arguments for punitive damages, but the motions were all denied. Pena claimed he initially told a different version of the events of the accident because he was very scared, nervous, anxious, and confused as to how the accident occurred. He also claimed that the reporting officer attributed the statement of “it was against the law and company policy to make a right turn from the left lane” as the reason he lied. At mediation, Pena claimed that he continued the large, sweeping right turn until he was facing westbound on Catherine Avenue, where he stopped on two occasions to observe oncoming traffic, which defense counsel contended was confirmed by physical evidence. Pena also claimed he only observed traffic stopped at the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Beach Boulevard, located further south than the intersection with Catherine Avenue, and that after he confirm that there was no oncoming traffic, he began to cross Beach Boulevard with all the street sweeper’s safety lights and beacons on, traveling between 4 and 8 mph until he reached the median tip area. He further claimed that when he reached the median tip, he began sweeping for approximately 10 seconds while traveling approximately less than 1 mph, prior to the impact. In addition, Pena claimed he was looking down to the left while performing his duties, and was stopped for approximately 10 seconds before impact. Joe’s Sweeping claimed that Pena’s past performance as a sweeper was exemplary and that his previous prevarication had nothing to do with his performance as an operator. Defense counsel contended that the decedent was partially at fault for the collision and should have seen the street sweeper in sufficient time to stop and avoid the impact. Counsel also contended that the decedent’s medical records in the years before the accident showed that the decedent had various eye conditions and visual problems that hampered his vision. Counsel further contended the decedent’s eye condition caused him to tell his doctor that he did not feel comfortable driving in low-light conditions, like he was doing in the early morning hours of the accident, and that he no longer drove at night. Thus, defense counsel asserted that the decedent’s eyesight had been below the legal limit required to operate a vehicle since 1994, that the decedent’s vision continued to degenerate over time, and that the coroner’s report showed that the decedent was not wearing glasses or contacts at the time of the accident., Dennis Schenk suffered blunt force trauma to his head, resulting in skull fractures, contusions and a laceration of the brain. He ultimately died from his . Schenk was 55. The decedent’s parents, Delmar and Marlys Schenk, ages 81 and 79, respectively, claimed they had a unique bond of love, affection, society, support, and companionship with the decedent due to his difficult upbringing with diabetes. They also claimed that the decedent, whom was one of four children, lived with them for the first 49 years of his life and that they nursed him through his diabetes, which required insulin injections up to three or four times per day, and several multi-year periods of regular dialysis. The decedent’s parents further claimed that the bond was strengthened in 1985, when Marlys Schenk donated a kidney to the decedent due to his impending kidney failure. They alleged that as a result, the decedent would commemorate the gift every year with a dozen roses for his mother, which she in turn now places at the accident scene, in the area where the decedent died. In addition, the parents claimed that when the decedent left their home for the first time at the age of 49, he was diabetes-free and the healthiest he had been since being diagnosed at age 12, and that the next six years of his life were his prime. Delmar and Marlys Schenk’s entire claim, other than seeking recovery of $11,000 in burial expenses, was based on non-economic wrongful death damages and punitive damages, for which they were seeking $5 million prior to mediation. Since the decedent was not providing any economic support to his parents, they did not seek any economic damages as a result of his passing. Defense counsel contended that due to the decedent’s medical condition and the advanced age of his parents, all of their life expectancies were quite short. Counsel also contended that although the decedent’s parents may have had a close relationship with their son, the decedent did not contribute monetarily to his parents, nor was he ever expected to do so.