On Sept. 18, 2011, plaintiff James Schultz, an ironworker in his 40s, was driving on Hinkley Road, in Barstow, with his friend, plaintiff Loren Branson, 41, a floor and tile installer, in the front, passenger seat. Schultz and Branson entered Hinkley Road from an unpaved dirt trail used by off-roaders in the area. As they had entered the roadway after a point where the San Bernardino Department of Public Works had erected barriers, they were unaware that the bridge on Hinkley Road that crossed the Mojave River had been washed out nine months prior. As a result, Schultz drove off the bridge and into the dry riverbed below, an estimated at 10 foot drop. Schultz subsequently claimed to his chest, and Branson claimed to head, neck, chest, back, and an elbow. Schultz and Branson sued the county of San Bernardino, alleging the county was negligent for failing to warn about the bridge being closed off, creating a dangerous condition of public property. Although Loma Linda University Medical Center appeared on the case caption, it was never a defendant. Thus, the matter proceeded against the county only. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the county failed to provide sufficient warnings and that although it did place signs, they were not placed in proper locations. Specifically, counsel contended that the county closed Hinkley Road about three quarters of a mile before the bridge, but that Schultz and Branson were able to enter the road from a commonly used dirt trial after the area where the county had noted that it closed down the bridge. Defense counsel placed liability on Schultz, as the driver, and argued that Schultz should have known the bridge was washed out. Counsel further argued that because Schultz and Branson had entered from a dirt trial, there was no way the county could have anticipated the exact area of access., Branson suffered soft tissue to his neck, a soft tissue injury to his dominant elbow, a deep scalp laceration, a seat belt burn mark across his chest, and general chest pain. He also claimed he sustained bulging lumbar discs at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. Branson was subsequently taken by ambulance to a hospital. For treatment, he received trigger point injections to his lower back and underwent eight physical therapy sessions. Branson claimed that the injections provided him temporary relief for his back pain, but that he continues to suffer from chronic lower back pain and treats it by taking ibuprofen. Although Branson was unemployed at the time of the accident, he claimed that his back prevent him from ever being able to return to work in floor and tile installation. He also alleged that he wants to pursue further physical therapy. Schultz sustained blunt force trauma to his head and lost consciousness. He was also determined to have sustained a fractured sternum, resulting in chest pain. Schultz was subsequently airlifted to a hospital, where he was treated and released. He then underwent three months of physical therapy. Schultz made a full recovery after three months of care. Since he did not have valid car insurance at the time of the accident, pursuant to proposition 213, he was only entitled to economic damages. Defense counsel disputed that Branson had any other other than the soft tissue and the seat belt mark. Counsel also argued that there was no medical evidence that Branson should still be suffering from back pain and that if Branson had any back pain, it would have been due to a degenerative condition. Defense counsel further argued that Schultz’s were exacerbated by him not wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident.