On Jan. 15, 2016, plaintiff Megan Beach, an unemployed 31 year old, exited a bus that had stopped on Willow Pass Road, near the intersection with Bella Vista Ave, in an unincorporated area of Bay Point. She walked 50 feet ahead of the bus and began to cross the street in a marked, uncontrolled crosswalk. However, within three seconds of entering the crosswalk, Beach was struck by a van operated by Sheena Glover. Beach sustained to her head and she was rendered a quadriplegic. Beach sued Glover and the maintainer of the intersection, Contra Costa County. Beach alleged that Glover was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that the county was liable for the intersection’s dangerous condition of public property. The bus company, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Agency, was also named as a defendant, but it agreed to tender its $2 million policy limits in order to settle the claims against it in 2018. Contra Costa County’s counsel moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no dangerous condition, that the county lacked notice of the allegedly dangerous condition and that the county had design immunity. However, Judge Jill Fannin denied the motion, ruling that there were triable issues of fact regarding the existence of a dangerous condition and pre-approval for design immunity purposes. Beach claimed that although she had no recall of the incident, she remembered that the stopped bus blocked her view of oncoming traffic to her left. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the location of the bus stop on the near side of the marked, uncontrolled crosswalk created a dangerous condition of public property, as the stopped bus blocked the view of both crossing pedestrians and westbound drivers. Counsel contended that the subject bus stop was known in the industry as a "near side bus stop" and that near side bus stops were discouraged because they created a visual obstruction for pedestrians entering a crosswalk and for drivers approaching the crosswalk. Counsel asserted that for that reason, the industry and government agencies prefer far side bus stops so that pedestrians can cross behind a bus and avoid visual obstructions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Contra Costa County had planned to remove the crosswalk and bus stop for "pedestrian crossing safety" six years before the incident. Contra Costa County traffic engineers testified that the reason the bus stop and crosswalk were not removed was due to an oversight and that they had more pressing roadway safety issues elsewhere. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Contra Costa County’s engineering plans required a pedestrian-crossing warning sign and "PED XING" markings 270 feet before the crosswalk and another pedestrian crossing sign 1,000 feet before the crosswalk to warn drivers of upcoming crosswalks and pedestrians. However, counsel noted that the signs and markings were inexplicably missing on the date of the accident and that the deposed engineers did not know the warnings were missing until their depositions. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that despite the visibility issues at the crosswalk/bus stop, Glover should have seen Beach crossing in front of her vehicle and been able to stop in time, but that Glover was speeding, traveling at 37 mph in a 25 mph zone. The county’s counsel asserted that there was no history of prior accidents at the subject location and that millions of cars and thousands of pedestrians had safely traveled through the area without incident. Counsel also denied the county had any notice of any alleged dangerous condition at the subject location, and asserted that the main causes of the accident were the speed and inattention of the driver, Glover, and the inattention of the pedestrian, Beach, making Beach comparatively negligent. Glover claimed that she did not recall seeing Beach before the accident and that she only knew the collision occurred by the impact. In response, plaintiff’s counsel disputed Glover’s version of events, and noted that Glover’s vehicle data recorder showed that Glover had slightly depressed her car brake milliseconds before the impact., Beach sustained extensive non-displaced fractures that extended from her left posterior parietal bone through the skull base and that the fractures involved both temporal bones and extended through the sphenoid sinus. She also suffered multiple scattered areas of intra-axial and extra-axial hemorrhaging throughout both hemispheres, a right temporal hemorrhagic contusion and scattered subarachnoid hemorrhages. Beach was rendered unconscious at the scene, and she was bleeding from her ears, mouth and nose. She was taken to a hospital, where she regained consciousness months later, in around September 2016. Beach underwent multiple surgeries, including a craniotomy and an evacuation of the hematomas. However, a couple of months later, she developed hydrocephalus and had to have surgically implanted a permanent ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt, which is a medical device that relieves pressure on the brain caused by fluid accumulation. Beach suffers from significant cognitive deficits and was rendered a quadriplegic. It was undisputed that she will require 24/7 attendant care for the rest of her life. To treat the spasticity in her limbs, she will need orthopedic surgeries that would improve the functioning of her limbs. However, it is anticipated that with the treatment provided in her life care plans, Beach would achieve significant physical improvements. Prior to the incident, Beach worked in retail sales for many years. At the time of the crash, she had been unemployed for about a year. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Beach aspired to work in fashion and took some college courses, but Beach waived her claims of past and future wage loss. Beach sought recovery of $1.2 million in past medical costs and $15 million to $19 million in future medical costs. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel for Glover and the county disputed Beach’s life expectancy and the cost of Beach’s future medical care.