At around 11 a.m. on Aug.11, 2007, plaintiff Daniel Nixon, 46, a windsmith, was trail riding dirt bikes with his 16-year-old son on Big Mountain Road, also known as County Road 8n58, an unimproved logging road in the El Dorado National Forest. As they came to a tight turn, a large pickup truck operated by Susan Snoke approached from the opposite direction. Subsequently, Nixon collided with the front of Snoke’s pickup and sustained head and knee . Nixon sued Snoke. He claimed that Snoke was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. Nixon also initially sued the manufacturer of the dirt bike, Yamaha of Modesto, and the doctor that treated him after the accident, Dr. Jeffrey McGillicuddy, but they were ultimately let out of the case on summary judgment. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against Snoke only. Nixon claimed that he had to attempt an evasive action upon seeing Snoke’s pickup truck since the driver had cut toward the inside of the turn. Defense counsel noted that as Nixon and his son came to the hairpin curve at 25 to 30 mph, Snoke approached from the opposite direction, traveling at 20 mph. Snoke claimed that she saw a flash of color through the heavy wooded forest and brought her pickup to a stop so that the dirt bikes could pass safely. However, she claimed that Nixon did not see her vehicle and collided with her far left front bumper at full speed. Defense counsel noted that Nixon did not remember the accident and that his son testified that they had been riding for about three hours without a break. Counsel also noted that Nixon’s son testified that they were going as fast as 60 mph at certain portions on the road, and were going between 20 and 30 mph at the time of the accident. Defense counsel further noted that Nixon’s son testified that Snoke was on their side of the road, which is what he told someone later that morning while in the course of getting help. Defense counsel maintained that Snoke was not responsible for the accident and that it was the complete fault of Nixon for taking the curve at an excessive rate of speed, without a regard for oncoming traffic. Experts from both sides agreed that a motorcyclist taking the turn faster than 15 mph would cause the motorcyclist to lose control. Defense counsel contended that evidence showed that the plaintiff took the turn at 25 mph. Counsel noted that this particular dirt road is used by logging trucks and forest service vehicles, as well as recreational and residential users. Thus, defense counsel contended that Snoke lives in the area and that for her own safety, and the safety of others, she has a custom and practice of driving slowly on the right side of the dirt road with attention to oncoming traffic. Snoke claimed that on this particular day, she did all those things, which allowed her to see Nixon through the trees about four seconds before impact and bring her truck to a stop. In addition, defense counsel noted that Snoke and the emergency responders placed her truck to the far right of the road. Thus, defense counsel asserted that nothing Snoke did or didn’t do constituted negligence or a cause of the accident., Nixon suffered a closed head injury, complete tears of the majority of the ligaments and tendons in the right knee and a popliteal artery tear with bleeding to his lower right leg. As a result, he was life-flighted to Sutter Roseville Medical Center’s Trauma Center and underwent several surgeries during the following 30 days. Nixon has used a large knee brace to ambulate since the accident and he claimed that he has been in need of a total knee replacement. However, his treating doctors testified that due to the severe existing artery damage, it is likely that Nixon will require an above-the-knee leg amputation if a knee reconstruction is attempted. Plaintiff’s counsel alleged that Nixon’s past medical costs amounted to approximately $570,000 and that his future medical costs would amount to approximately $1.4 million, with a future economic loss of approximately $1.1 million and associated general damages. Counsel asserted that Nixon would need to stop climbing towers to repair windmill turbine towers for work and undergo an above-the-knee amputation of the right leg within one to 10 years. However, according to plaintiff’s counsel, Nixon had been working with his existing injury and planned to continue working, despite his badly injured leg. Defense counsel noted that approximately one month before trial, the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic physician testified that regardless of any potential knee replacement surgery recommendation, Nixon will require an amputation sometime his lifetime, which counsel argued could be in five, 10, or 20 years. Defense counsel argued that the claim of a future amputation was speculative. Counsel noted that the plaintiff’s treating vascular surgeon did not recommend against knee replacement surgery and testified that Nixon’s circulation at present is good and if it got worse, a bypass surgery for the popliteal artery could be performed. Defense counsel added that the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic physician testified that there were other conservative treatment options available to Nixon at this time, including cortisone injections. In addition, counsel noted that the expert could not say with any certainty when Nixon’s right leg might deteriorate to the point that an amputation would be required. Defense counsel further argued that Nixon’s alleged future loss of earning capacity was speculative. Counsel noted that Nixon has been working in his chosen profession for the past four years, despite his knee injury and condition, including extensive overtime and increases in compensation.