On Sept. 18, 2014, plaintiff Marc Loberg, an unemployed 28 year old, was driving in the rain on State Highway 20, outside of Lucerne, when his Honda Accord was struck head-on by a Ford Crown Victoria patrol vehicle operated by Deputy Richard Kreutzer, who had lost control of his vehicle. Loberg sustained to his left wrist, right ankle, and abdomen. Loberg sued Kreutzer’s employer, the county of Lake. Loberg alleged that Kreutzer was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the county was vicariously liable for Kreutzer’s actions while in the course and scope of his job. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Kreutzer was not responding to an emergency or in pursuit of a suspect at the time of the incident, but that Kreutzer rapidly accelerated his vehicle, causing a loss of traction that resulted in the crash that occurred at an estimated 50 mph. Counsel argued that on the wet, rainy day, Kreutzer needed to use extra caution, but that he did not, and that Kreutzer was negligent for stomping 100 percent on the gas pedal while on a wet roadway. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that Kreutzer could have avoided the collision entirely by simply deciding that he did not have to pass a tractor-trailer, as he was not responding to any emergency. Thus, counsel argued that the county was liable for Kreutzer’s negligent actions. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the dash cam video from Kreutzer’s vehicle showed Kreutzer attempting to pass a tractor-trailer and then losing control of his vehicle. There was no sound on the portion of the dash cam video that showed the collision. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that it was also not clear from the video alone if Kreutzer was accelerating rapidly before he lost control. However, during litigation, it was discovered that the patrol vehicle had crash data stored on an event data recorder, or “black box.” Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the data from the patrol vehicle confirmed that Kreutzer applied 100 percent of the gas pedal immediately before he lost control of the vehicle. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert opined that Kreutzer lost control of his vehicle due to his rapid acceleration from full throttle on the wet road. Defense counsel contended that Kreutzer was driving his patrol vehicle when he attempted to pass a tractor-trailer that had moved toward one side of the road in order to allow other vehicles to pass. Counsel also contended that the road was exceptionally slippery that day. (According to the tractor-trailer driver who pulled into a turnout to allow Kreutzer to pass and had witnessed the accident, the roadway was “slippery as snot.”) Thus, defense counsel contended that as Kreutzer steered his vehicle to its former position in the lane, he lost control of the car, which swerved back and forth before careening into the oncoming lane and collided with Loberg’s car. Thus, defense counsel argued that Kreutzer lost control due to no fault of his own and blamed the wet roadway as the cause of the accident. Kreutzer claimed that he only accelerated slightly that day and that his operation of the vehicle was not the cause of the crash. Defense counsel contended that Kreutzer was not accelerating too quickly or speeding and that it was uncontradicted that Kreutzer’s highest speed was 45 mph with the speed limit being 55 mph., Loberg was traveling from his mother’s home, on his way to a wedding, when the collision occurred. His left, non-dominant wrist was severely shattered and he suffered a 100 percent displaced, comminuted fracture of the distal radius. He also suffered a fracture of the lateral process of the talus in his right ankle, a concussion, and severe abdominal bruising. Loberg was subsequently taken by ambulance to Sutter Lakeside Hospital, in Lakeport, where he was treated for his and his right ankle was placed in a CAM walker boot, which is an adjustable orthopedic apparatus that looks like a boot. He ultimately underwent three surgeries to his left wrist. Loberg claimed that despite surgery, his left wrist became deformed and disfigured. He also claimed that even though he did not undergo surgery on his right ankle, it turned arthritic. Loberg alleged that as a result, he suffers from a loss of range of motion and pain in his ankle and wrist, which causes him to be limited in his daily activities. However, he was ultimately able to return to work as a drafter. The plaintiff’s three treating doctors testified that Loberg will need four future surgeries, including a total wrist fusion and a subtalar joint fusion to fuse his heel bone with his ankle. However, they opined that those surgeries, Loberg’s range of motion and movement will be severely limited in the wrist and ankle. They also opined that Loberg will have pain and discomfort for the rest of his life. The plaintiff’s medical experts testified about the medical procedures that had already been performed and about the future medical procedures that were allegedly needed. Thus, Loberg sought recovery of approximately $165,000 in past medical costs, approximately $75,000 in future medical costs, approximately $50,000 in past loss of earnings, and approximately $300,000 in future loss of earning capacity. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert opined that Loberg would not need any future surgeries.