On Dec. 28, 2016, plaintiff Alfredo Espinosa Jr., 61, a contractor, was driving in Bakersfield with his wife, plaintiff Alice Espinosa, 60, a retiree, as a front seat passenger. While they were traveling on Golden State Highway, also known as State Route 99, their vehicle was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer operated by Fidel Sanchez. The impact subsequently caused the Espinosa vehicle to rear-end a vehicle that was coming to a stop in front of them. The stopping vehicle was operated by Marco Morin. Mr. Espinosa claimed to his neck and shoulders, and Ms. Espinosa claimed she suffered a psychological injury. The Espinosas sued Sanchez; Sanchez’s employer, Jetriders Inc.; and the owner of Sanchez’s tractor-trailer, which leased the vehicle to Sanchez, Penske Truck Leasing Corp. The Espinosas alleged that Sanchez was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that Jetriders Inc. and Penske Truck Leasing were vicariously liable for Sanchez’s actions. Sanchez, Jetriders Inc. and Penske Truck Leasing brought a counter-claim against Mr. Espinosa, alleging that Mr. Espinosa was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and the cause of the collision. Morin filed a separate lawsuit against Sanchez, Jetriders Inc. and Penske Truck Leasing. Morin also alleged that Sanchez was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that Jetriders Inc. and Penske Truck Leasing were vicariously liable for Sanchez’s actions. The matters were consolidated. Morin settled with defendants prior to trial. In addition, the Espinosas’ claims against Penske Truck Leasing were resolved prior to trial, and the cross-complaint against Mr. Espinosa was ultimately dismissed mid-trial. Thus, the trial continued with only the Espinosa’s claims against Sanchez and Jetriders Inc. The Espinosas, and initially Morin, claimed that Sanchez was speeding and failed to keep a proper look out. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that as a result, Sanchez was unable to stop in time, causing Sanchez to rear-end the Espinosa vehicle and push it into Morin’s vehicle. Defense counsel contended that Mr. Espinosa was attempting to change lanes in an attempt to enter the far right lane of the freeway. Counsel argued that as a result, Mr. Espinosa was negligent for making an unsafe lane change by attempting to go between Morin’s vehicle and Sanchez’s tractor-trailer seconds before for the accident. Defense counsel further argued that Mr. Espinosa’s actions caused Sanchez to have no chance to avoid a collision when Morin’s vehicle came to a stop in front of Mr. Espinosa. Thus, defense counsel asserted that Mr. Espinosa was at least comparatively at fault for the collision., The Espinosas were both taken by ambulance to a hospital. Mr. Espinosa claimed he sustained a rotator cuff tear to each shoulder, as well as a herniated cervical disc at the C5-6 level. At the hospital, he complained of neck pain and he later complained of shoulder pain. After he was released from the hospital, Mr. Espinosa followed up with an orthopedic surgeon and a neurosurgeon. He ultimately underwent a shoulder surgery in April 2017 and then another shoulder surgery in November 2017. He also underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion to treat his neck in early 2021. Mr. Espinosa continues to work part-time after the accident. He initially claimed he suffered a loss of earnings, but he ultimately did not claim any wage loss at trial. Mr. Espinosa also claimed that he will eventually require surgery at the adjacent cervical level, at C5-6, due to adjacent segment disease. Mr. Espinosa sought recovery for his past and future medical costs, and past and future pain and suffering. Ms. Espinosa was briefly seen in the hospital’s emergency room. However, she did not suffer any serious physical , and only claimed emotional distress as a result of the collision. She did not seek any counseling for her alleged psychological condition and she did not claim she will need future counseling. Ms. Espinosa sought recovery for her past medical costs related to her treatment in the emergency room. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. In total, the Espinosas sought recovery of almost $2.4 million in total damages. Defense counsel disputed Mr. Espinosa’s alleged . Counsel argued that Mr. Espinosa’s were pre-existing and not causally related to the accident. Instead, counsel contended that Mr. Espinosa’s rotator cuff tears were caused by his work as a contractor and that Mr. Espinosa’s neck pain was due to a pre-existing, degenerative condition. The defense’s medical experts opined that Mr. Espinosa’s cervical surgery was performed to remove a pre-existing disc osteophyte, or bone spur, which was caused by degeneration. Accordingly, defense counsel argued that Mr. Espinosa’s neck pain was not caused by a traumatic event, such as the subject collision.