On Aug. 15, 2012, plaintiff David Buffington, 58, a promotional material salesman, was riding his bicycle on northbound Back Bay Drive, a multi-use road in Newport Beach. Back Bay Drive is made up of a wide, one-way, northbound lane, used by automobiles and bicyclists. The narrower southbound lane is a dedicated bicycle lane that is also used by runners, dog walkers and sightseers. The lanes are separated by a double-yellow line. At approximately 6 p.m., Buffington collided with another bicyclist, Terry Rouse, who was traveling south on Back Bay Drive. Buffington claimed to his neck and back, as well as blurred vision. Buffington sued Rouse, alleging the defendant was negligent in the operation of his bicycle, specifically for crossing the double-yellow line to pass and cutting into his lane/path of travel. Buffington contended that when he was coming around a curve on northbound Back Bay Drive, Rouse crossed over the double-yellow line from the southbound bicycle lane and caused the collision. He claimed that Rouse crossed so wide over the double-yellow line that the crash was within several feet of the edge of the northbound lane of travel. Rouse disputed liability, arguing that Buffington’s inattentiveness was the sole proximate cause of the collision. He claimed he was trailing two slower bicyclists and was in the midst of making a passing maneuver when Buffington approached in the northbound lane in the “aero position” (head down, elbows tucked in on the aero bars). Rouse claimed that Buffington was not paying attention to oncoming bike traffic and veered into his path, resulting in the collision. However, Rouse admitted to crossing the double-yellow line, but claimed he was left with no choice due to the narrowness of the southbound lane. In response, Buffington claim that he was not in the aero position at the time of the collision and that Rouse caused the crash by turning in front of him. However, defense counsel argued that an elbow pad on Rouse’s bicycle broke when it became loaded on impact and that the pad was not damaged from striking the asphalt since there were no marks or scratches on the pad. Thus, defense counsel argued that this proved that Buffington was on his aero bars at the time of impact., Buffington was taken by ambulance to an emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a cervical hematoma and monitored by a neurosurgeon over two days before being discharged. He claimed that while the hematoma resolved, he followed up with a neurosurgeon who prescribed physical therapy for neck and back strains and sprains, and also approved treatment with a chiropractor. Buffington subsequently underwent approximately five weeks of limited chiropractic care and physical therapy to treat neck and back pain. He also saw an eye specialist for blurred vision. After approximately five weeks of care, the plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon deferred to the chiropractor for any further neck and back treatment. As a result, Buffington continued treatment with his chiropractor, who determined that Buffington had ligament damage in his neck. Buffington alleged he was a triathlete prior to the accident and rode his bicycle four to five times a week, riding between 35 and 55 miles per ride. However, he claimed that due to his condition, he can no longer play golf or ride his bicycle as he had before. Buffington also claimed he could not spend quality time with his dying mother, as he had the previous months, due to his . He further claimed he needs to continue treating with his chiropractor and will require future care for his neck injury. Thus, Buffington sought recovery of $25,000 in past medical costs, $2,400 in future medical costs and $7,500 in property damage for his bicycle. He also sought recovery of $100,000 in damages for his past pain and suffering, and $50,000 in damages for his future pain and suffering. Defense counsel conceded to the reasonableness and necessity of all of Buffington’s treatment, except for Buffington’s chiropractic care. Counsel also disputed the alleged need for Buffington’s ongoing/future care, arguing that Buffington was fully resolved from his cervical hematoma. Defense counsel further argued that all of Buffington’s chiropractic care and future treatment was related to a pre-existing condition, since Buffington had been treating with the chiropractor prior to the subject accident.