At around 9 p.m. on Aug. 14, 2014, plaintiff Ricardo Moreno-Jimenez, a physical laborer in his 40s, was driving a black 2004 Lexus on westbound Sebasian Way, in San Jose, when he came to a stop for a red light controlling traffic at the intersection with Senter Road. When the light turned green, he proceeded straight into the intersection, but the right quarter panel on the passenger side of his vehicle was broadsided by a 2013 Chevy Caprice Police Cruiser operated by Police Officer Gennaro Strangis, who entered the intersection from southbound Senter Road. The impact caused Moreno-Jimenez’s vehicle to spin and then stop. Moreno-Jimenez claimed to his back. It was undisputed that when Strangis entered the intersection, the emergency lights and sirens on his police cruiser were activated and that the traffic signal for north- and southbound traffic on Senter Road was red. Moreno-Jimenez sued Strangis and Strangis’ employer, the city of San Jose. Moreno-Jimenez alleged that Strangis was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the city was vicariously liable for Strangis’ actions while within the course and scope of his employment as an officer with the San Jose Police Department. The plaintiff’s police practices expert testified about police driving procedures. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Strangis was responsible for the accident. Defense counsel contended that Strangis activated his lights and sirens, but that Moreno-Jimenez failed to yield. Thus, counsel denied that Strangis was responsible for the accident and argued that Moreno-Jimenez was solely at fault., Moreno-Jimenez claimed that he sustained a 1 millimeter bulging lumbar disc at the L3-4 level, 2 millimeter bulging lumbar disc at the L4-5 level with mild foraminal narrowing and effacement of the thecal sac, and a 2 millimeter annular bulge of the lumbar spine at the L5-S1 level with foraminal narrowing and effacement of the descending S1 nerve roots. He was subsequently transported from the scene to Regional Medical Center, in San Jose, for emergency medical treatment. Thereafter, he followed a conservative course of medical treatment, including chiropractic manipulation and pain management through medication, before being evaluated by a spinal surgeon and undergoing an MRI. Moreno-Jimenez was out of work for a few months, which he claimed caused him to suffer a small amount of lost wages. The plaintiff’s treating spinal surgeon recommended future care of physical therapy, pain management, and, ultimately, surgical intervention. Based on expert’s testimony, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Moreno-Jimenez could need future treatment, though it was unknown what kind and it could range from physical therapy to surgery. However, Judge James Stoelker limited Moreno-Jimenez’s claims for future medical care after finding the plaintiff’s expert’s opinions to be speculative. Thus, Moreno-Jimenez sought compensation for the physical he sustained in the collision, the cost of the medical treatment he received as a result of the collision, the cost of his future medical care, wages for the time he missed from work, and the loss of his vehicle. However, Stoelker precluded plaintiff’s counsel from offering evidence of Moreno-Jimenez’s past medical specials into evidence, as Moreno-Jimenez was uninsured at the time of the collision. Defense counsel disputed the extent, nature and cost of Moreno-Jimenez’s alleged and medical care. Counsel also argued that Moreno-Jimenez did not need any further care. The defense’s life care planning expert, who was also a registered nurse, testified about medical billing processes and reasonable medical costs. The expert also testified about how Moreno-Jimenez did not pay out-of-pocket as much as he alleged.