On Jan. 15, 2013, at 12:40 a.m., plaintiff’s decedent Simon Chavez, 22, a student, was a passenger in a taxi operated by Thomas Rhyne in the city of Santa Barbara. Chavez, who was intoxicated, felt sick and got out of the cab near Carrillo Street. He then walked away from the taxi, and was subsequently struck and killed by a vehicle operated by Lau Van Huynh, who was traveling in the southbound lanes of Highway 101, near the Ortega Street footbridge. Huynh was arrested on felony hit-and-run charges, which he pleaded guilty to and was sentenced to a year in the Santa Barbara County jail. A coroner later determined that at the time of his death, Chavez’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.256, or three times the legal limit to drive. The decedent’s mother, Ana Quintanar, acting individually and as the personal representative of her son’s estate, sued Lau Van Huynh; the owners of Huynh’s vehicle, Viet Huynh and David Huynh; Rhyne; the owner of the taxi, Absolute Cab LLC (which was jointly owned by Rhyne); and the co-owner of Absolute Cab, Joshua Klein. Quintanar alleged that Lau Van Huynh was negligent in operation of his vehicle and that Viet Huynh and David Huynh were vicariously liable for Lau Van Huynh’s action. She also alleged that Rhyne, Klein and Absolute Cab LLC were general negligent. Chavez’s biological father, Jose Chavez Lozano, was not a party to the lawsuit, but under California law, was added as a non-party defendant. Simon Chavez had been out with friends drinking at a bar where he became intoxicated. After midnight, the bartender called Absolute Cab, and Rhyne arrived to pick up Chavez. A friend of Chavez’s paid Rhyne $20 to take him to his home. As the taxi neared the intersection of De La Vina and Carrillo Streets, Chavez indicated that he may be sick and needed to get out of the vehicle, perhaps to vomit. As a result, Chavez got out of the vehicle. The Huynh family’s insurance carrier ultimately agreed to settle with Quintanar for $30,000 in 2014. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against the Rhyne, Klein and Absolute Cab. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after Chavez got out of the vehicle, Rhyne moved the taxi to a parking lot on the south side of Carrillo Street. Counsel contended that Chavez then attempted to locate Rhyne, but couldn’t because the taxi was not where he expected it. In addition, counsel contended that Rhyne didn’t signal to Chavez where he was and, instead, left the area to pick up another fare. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that although Rhyne recognized, or should have recognized, the danger to Chavez of walking along Carrillo Street in his condition, Rhyne did not contact 911 or any other agency to assist Chavez and, instead, abandoned him. Counsel also argued that Rhyne and his employer had a legal duty to ensure that Chavez safely arrived at his destination once they picked him up and accepted money for the fare and that the cab company’s own rule book stated that passengers should not be let out of the vehicle before reaching their destination. The plaintiff’s taxi safety expert testified that Rhyne and his employer had a heightened care to protect Chavez from harm since, as a cab company, Absolute Cab was a “common carrier.” He further testified that as a driver for a common carrier, Rhyne had an affirmative duty to drive Chavez home and not leave him in his highly intoxicated state more than one mile from his home, stumbling and headed in the direction of a freeway, which was in the opposite direction of his home. The expert further testified that if it was clear that Chavez would not voluntarily get back into his cab, Rhyne had the duty to call police and report the situation. Counsel for Rhyne, Klein and Absolute Cab contended that Chavez was so intoxicated that he could not recall his home address and that it had to be provided by Chavez’s friend. Counsel argued that although Chavez was highly intoxicated, he was capable of making his own choices and that when Rhyne stopped for a red light at the intersection of De La Vina and Carrillo Streets, Chavez tried to open the side door of the cab, but it was locked. Defense counsel contended that Rhyne asked Chavez if he was going to be sick, to which Chavez responded that he was, and Rhyne subsequently opened the door remotely from his driver’s side. Thus, counsel argued that Chavez chose to get out of Rhyne’s cab, in a safe area, and chose not to return despite reasonable efforts made by Rhyne to get Chavez back into his cab. Defense counsel contended that Rhyne shouted at Chavez to return to the cab, but that Chavez did not. Counsel also contended that Rhyne honked his horn, but that Chavez did not respond and continued to stumble along the sidewalk of Carrillo Street. Counsel further contended that after about five minutes of Rhyne shouting and honking, Chavez appeared to turn to Rhyne and give him a wave, which Rhyne took for a signal that he was no longer needed. Thus, defense counsel argued that once Chavez indicated by his actions that he no longer needed Rhyne’s services, Rhyne’s duty to Chavez ended. Counsel also argued that, legally, Rhyne could not force Chavez back into his cab because he would be at risk of a false imprisonment lawsuit. Counsel further argued that despite the heightened burden of care that they were required to meet as a common carrier, Rhyne and his employer met that burden. In addition, defense counsel argued that Chavez’s ability to walk almost one-half a mile from where he was left, and the circumstances surrounding the collision, made any alleged neglect of the defendants far too attenuated to be deemed a substantial factor in Chavez’s death. The defense’s taxi safety expert testified that the duty of care was owed while Chavez was a passenger inside the taxi. He also testified that Chavez was not ejected from the cab and that, as such, no further duty of care was owed to him. The expert further testified that it would have been illegal and dangerous for Rhyne to have confronted, grabbed, and/or tried to force Chavez back into the taxi. Klein claimed that he could not be held accountable for the accident because he made no decisions on the day of the incident with regard to the transportation of Chavez. He also claimed that he was not in communication with Rhyne and was at home sleeping at the time of the incident., Chavez sustained multiple traumatic as a result of being struck on Highway 101. He subsequently died from his . He was 22. Chavez’s mother, Quintanar, claimed that she enjoyed a close, loving relationship with her son. She also claimed that Chavez took care of his younger brother who suffered from autism. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel suggested that the jury award Quintanar $8 million in wrongful death damages for the loss of Chavez’s household services and for the loss of Chavez’s companionship and society. Counsel for Rhyne, Klein and Absolute Cab did not dispute the nature and extent of the close, loving relationship between Quintanar and her son, but did dispute that alleged loss of household services. Counsel argued that there was no reasonable basis to show that Chavez would have remained at home indefinitely to take care of his autistic brother.