Justice Halim Dhanidina, California Court of Appeals for the Second District. (Courtesy photo)

Four orphans could each get more than $11 million in a wrongful death case after a California appellate court decided comparing the verdicts of similar cases has "limited value."

A jury awarded Rachel Fernandez, Jeremy Valle, Donovan Valle and Ryan Valle $11.25 million each in noneconomic damages after a drunken driver killed their 38-year-old, single mother, Claudia Fernandez, outside a taco truck. As the eldest, Rachel, 26, has taken on the role of caretaker, but they allege the loss of their prior family life has driven a wedge between them.

In their case before the Second District Court of Appeal, Elba Jimenez, the drunken driver, and Maria Rodriguez, who the plaintiffs claim negligently lent her car to an intoxicated Jimenez, argued that the noneconomic damages awards shock the conscience when compared to similar cases.

The appellate court disagreed, ruling Thursday that each case must be decided on its individual facts and that comparing verdicts is of "limited utility."

"Their deteriorating academic and social lives reflect the absence of her guidance and motivating presence," wrote Justice Halim Dhanidina, in an opinion joined by Justice Lee Smalley Edmon and Judge Mark Hanasono, on assignment from the Los Angeles Superior Court. "As for Rachel, she has made the weighty decision to be both mother and sister to her brothers, thereby forever altering her life trajectory. Further, the undisputed evidence is that each child was individually close to Claudia and that they were a tight-knit family unit. We cannot conclude that, on these facts, the verdict shocks the conscience."

The lawyers representing Claudia's family, Gary Lewis and John Carpenter of Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley in Beverly Hills, California, did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

"I think the court was in error in refusing to consider comparable judgments awarding noneconomic damages in wrongful death cases," said Jimenez's counsel, Roy Weatherup of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith in Los Angeles. "It seems they view the sky as the limit, because this particular award is way out of line with other cases."

The defendants, also represented by Lewis Brisbois' Allison A. Arabian and Dentons' Charles Bird, claim the plaintiffs' trial counsel "encouraged jurors to think they were playing with Monopoly money" by floating the idea of a $200 million verdict during voir dire. During the trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, lawyers for Jimenez and Rodriguez moved for a mistrial based on the plaintiffs attorneys' alleged preconditioning during the juror selection process, according to the ruling.

The Court of Appeal clarified the record, however, writing that a juror raised a potential $200 million value, not Fernandez's attorneys. However, even if the plaintiffs attorneys did raise the value, it would not be improper, according to the decision. "Jurors may be informed of the damages a plaintiff seeks," Dhanidina wrote.

Weatherup said he's very disappointed in the decision and is recommending his clients seek review by the California Supreme Court.