At around 8:30 a.m. on Aug. 8, 2012, plaintiff Carla Slater, 56, an in-home support service provider, was operating a 1993 Jeep Wrangler on southbound Monticello Road, also known as State Route 121, in Napa. At around the same time, Gil Pridmore was traveling in the opposite direction, pulling a trailer with a pickup truck on northbound State Route 121. As the truck came around a curve in the roadway, a 3- to 5-foot piece of 4-inch plastic PVC pipe fell out of either the bed of the truck or off of the trailer, and bounced into Slater’s path. Slater subsequently swerved to the left in an effort to avoid the bouncing pipe, and applied her brakes. However, Slater’s vehicle continued off the road and onto the shoulder abutting northbound State Route 121. The front bumper of the Jeep Wrangler then allegedly struck the side of a hill/embankment located near the shoulder of the roadway. Slater left the scene of the collision and returned to her trailer, where she contacted the authorities. Slater claimed that she observed Pridmore picking up the PVC pipe on the road an hour later. Slater also claimed that she injured her neck and back in the collision. Slater sued Gil Pridmore and the owner of the pickup truck, Pridmore Brothers Construction Inc. Slater alleged that Pridmore was negligent in the operation of the pickup truck and that Pridmore Brothers Construction was liable for Pridmore’s actions as an employee in the course and scope of his employment. Other individual defendants were also named in the original complaint, but they were all ultimately let out of the case. Thus, the trial continued against Pridmore and Pridmore Brothers Construction only. Slater claimed that Pridmore was negligent for failing to secure the pipe that left the company’s truck and trailer rig, thereby creating a dangerous condition. She also claimed that when she saw the pipe bouncing toward her windshield, she feared for her life and acted appropriately. Pridmore testified that he did not observe the pipe leaving his rig and that he did not observe Slater swerve off the road. However, three days before trial Pridmore Brothers Construction admitted liability for not securing the pipe in a proper manner. Counsel for Pridmore and Pridmore Brothers Construction argued that Slater “failed to accept responsibility” for swerving to the left, over a double-yellow line, in order to avoid the bouncing pipe. Counsel contended that Slater overreacted and that the incident could have been avoided, had Slater applied the brakes sooner or simply driven over the pipe., Slater claimed that she suffered a herniated lumbar disc at the L5-S1 level and a cervical disc bulge at the C4-5 level. Slater presented to her primary care physician eight days after the crash for treatment of her lower back injury. Four months later, she reported neck pain, in addition to her continued lower back pain, and claimed that her pain caused radiating symptoms in her upper and lower extremities. As a result, Slater was referred for an MRI. She then treated with a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, who performed epidural steroid injections, medial branch blocks, and radiofrequency ablations. Slater claimed that when conservative treatment failed to resolve her symptoms, she was referred to an orthopedic spine surgeon, who performed a lumbar fusion in April 2015. Slater then underwent additional epidural steroid injections to her neck at the C4-5 level. Slater claimed that despite treatment, she is generally physically limited due to her pain. The plaintiff’s life care plan expert testified that the cost of Slater’s future care was estimated to be $1.15 million, primarily for Slater’s ongoing neck complaints. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Slater $6 million in total damages, which included $315,000 for Slater’s outstanding past medical expenses, $1.15 million for Slater’s future medical expenses, $1 million in non-economic damages for Slater’s past pain and suffering, and $3.5 million in non-economic damages for Slater’s future pain and suffering. Slater did not claim lost income. The defense’s medical experts opined that Slater did not suffer any neck injury in the collision. The experts also opined that Slater may have suffered a back strain in the collision, but that it would have resolved within six weeks post-collision. They further opined that any additional treatment was not causally related to the collision, but was a result of pre-existing, degenerative disc disease. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that Slater did not strike the embankment during the incident. The defense’s biomechanical expert testified that had Slater struck the embankment, her speed at the time of impact would have been so low that the forces involved would have been insufficient to cause the that Slater alleged. The defense’s medical billing expert testified that the $315,000 in past medical expenses was not reasonable and that a reasonable value for Slater’s medical treatment would have only been $199,744.