On Dec. 21, 2012, plaintiff Shannon Hall, a flooring installer in his 40s, was operating a motorcycle on northbound Balboa Boulevard, in Granada Hills. He admitted he entered the intersection with Rinaldi Street on a yellow light, intending to ride straight through. However, he was struck by a vehicle operated by Roman Teper, who was making a left turn from southbound Balboa Boulevard onto eastbound Rinaldi Street. Hall claimed to his neck and a shoulder. Hall sued Teper, alleging that Teper was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Specifically, Hall claimed that he had the right of way and that it was safe for him to be in the intersection, but that Teper failed to yield to his motorcycle. Teper claimed that his view of the oncoming motorcycle was obstructed to some extent and that he never saw Hall before the collision. Defense counsel argued that although Hall probably did enter the intersection on a yellow light, it was not safe for him to do so. Counsel contended that given all the conditions of safe motorcycle operation, Hall should have stopped before entering the intersection, like the other motorists that day. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that the incident was a case of shared responsibility. The expert explained that Hall should have seen Teper’s vehicle ahead preparing to turn left on the yellow light and that Hall had the option to slow and stop before entering the intersection. The expert further opined that Hall should have been aware that by operating his motorcycle in the middle of lane behind another vehicle, it obscured him from being visible to oncoming drivers., Hall sustained a third-degree separation of a shoulder’s acromioclavicular joint, several fractured ribs, two transverse neck fractures, a punctured lung, a spleen laceration, bruises, and abrasions. He was subsequently taken to by ambulance to a hospital, where he remained hospitalized for four to five days. Hall then followed up with an orthopedist for approximately four to five months of physical therapy. He did not require any surgery. Hall claimed that he continues to have shoulder problems, including daily pain and range of motion problems. He did not introduce any evidence of economic damages, but he claimed he might eventually require surgery on his AC joint. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon testified that Hall continues to have pain as a result of the AC joint separation and that the pain reasonably limited Hall’s activities. The expert also opined that as a result of Hall’s ongoing complaints of pain and the alleged bulging cosmetic deformity, it was reasonable to consider future surgery. Defense counsel acknowledged that the AC joint separation was present, but argued that Hall did not require any surgery. Counsel contended that although Hall suffered some degree of separation, he had a fully functional arm with no loss of range of motion. Counsel also contended that there was virtually no anatomic explanation for any continued pain or loss of function of any significance. Defense counsel also noted that Hall’s other healed without incident within several months after accident and that no further treatment was necessary, nor did Hall have residual impacts from them. The defense’s orthopedic expert opined that any loss of range of motion was slight and would not affect Hall’s function in any meaningful way. The expert further opined that no surgery was indicated.