On Aug. 31, 2012, plaintiff’s decedent Calvin Godoy Sr., a 25-year-old unemployed man, left his girlfriend’s house in south central Los Angeles to get cigarettes. As he was riding a bicycle in the street without a helmet, which are both legal in Los Angeles, he turned from West 54th Street onto South Victoria Avenue and was involved in a collision with a truck operated by Fred Watson. Godoy sustained blunt force trauma to his head and was later determined to have marijuana and methamphetamines in his system. He also had no identification on him. Godoy was taken from the scene by ambulance. The responding police officers interviewed Watson, who told them his version of the accident, and took nine photographs of the scene with an iPhone. The police then wrote a single paragraph in the report about how the incident occurred without interviewing anyone else and placed Godoy 100 percent at fault. Godoy ultimately died from his . The decedent’s girlfriend, Shargo Harris, acting individually and as guardian ad litem to the decedent’s son, Calvin Godoy Jr., and the decedent’s mother, Maxine Mejia, acting individually, sued Watson. The decedent’s family alleged that Watson was negligent in the operation of his truck. Mejia and Harris’ individual claims were both dismissed long before trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial with the decedent’s son’s claim again Watson only. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that Watson was traveling south on South Victoria Avenue when he clipped the decedent, ejecting him from his bicycle. Specifically, counsel contended that the “bullhorn” (the nubs that stick out on the end of the handlebars) of the decedent’s bicycle made contact with the hood of Watson’s truck, leaving a mark and launching the decedent into a vertical post on the truck, causing the fatal injury. Counsel contended that Watson then immediately made a U-turn into the northbound lane and parked his truck to survey the accident scene. Plaintiff’s counsel introduced two witnesses who testified that they heard the accident and came running out of their house. One of the witnesses, Asberry Charles, claimed that he saw Watson’s truck making a U-turn and then parking right after he heard the noise. However, the other witness, Carolyn Kennard, who arrived at the same time as Charles, claimed that she never saw the truck move. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert analyzed the original digital images of the photos the police took at the scene and surmised that the blood patterns on the ground did not match Watson’s story. He also claimed that he found evidence that Watson’s truck rolled through that the blood, which supported witness Charles’ account that the truck made a U-turn. Thus, the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering experts theorized that Watson’s truck was moving south, and was not stopped northbound, as the police and Watson said, when it clipped the decedent and caused him to be launched into the post on the work truck. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the pictures showed Watson’s truck in the direction that Watson claimed he was stopped at the time of the crash because Watson had already turned around and pulled over by the time the police got there. Watson insisted that his truck was stopped behind two cars on northbound South Victoria Avenue when the decedent rounded a corner and ran into his truck. Thus, he claimed that the decedent was solely at fault for the fatal accident. Defense counsel contended that the defendant was going down a hill fast, turned onto the street where Watson’s truck was stopped behind two other cars, and collided with Watson’s truck. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert conducted three destructive “tests” that allegedly proved that the decedent’s bicycle could not have come into contact with the hood of the truck, as the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert claimed. Specifically, the defense expert testified that there was an alleged 5 inch disparity between the handle bar and the truck hood, so the handle bar could not have hit the hood. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defense’s accident reconstruction expert hired a team from Arizona and had numerous employees from State Farm Insurance Cos. and attorneys out at an experiment where they bought a replica bicycle, took the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert’s measurements, lined it up with the actual truck, and were going to crash it in the way plaintiff’s counsel theorized. However, the defense’s expert called off the experiment when he lined up the bike with the car and “proved” that there was no way the bullhorn could have hit the hood because there was a 5 inch disparity between the bullhorn and the truck. Thus, the defense expert opined that it was physically impossible for the bike to have hit the truck at the location alleged. However, two weeks before trial, plaintiff’s counsel noticed that the forked suspension on the bicycle that the defense’s expert used looked different than the suspension from the actual bike in the police photographs. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel proffered that the defense’s expert locked out the fork in the extreme stiff position and effectively raised the handlebars and the bullhorn of the bike by about 5 inches. However, counsel argued that if the fork was not locked, as it was not in the two police photos of the subject bike, the fork would flex and the handlebars would move downward, particularly in an emergency situation with a 200-pound rider, such as the decedent. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel used blow up poster boards to show the jury just how the test used by the defense’s expert could be adjusted and manipulated., Godoy sustained a massive head wound and was transported to the hospital. Godoy suffered a cerebral hemorrhage which led to his cardiac arrest. He would die alone at the hospital, seven days after the incident. Godoy’s family was finally notified when the coroner took Godoy’s fingerprints and contacted his probation officer. Prior to this, Godoy had a challenging life and was on probation for felony sales and his girlfriend had taken out a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence, though the two were trending in the right direction at the time of the incident. Godoy and his girlfriend had Calvin, Jr. together who was 7 years- old at the time of the incident. Godoy loved his son and was present whenever he could be. Plaintiff’s counsel called Calvin, Jr., now 13, to the witness stand. The defense had sought to exclude him from testifying. Calvin Jr. was poised and compelling, describing the relationship he had with his father and the loss that he feels now that his dad is gone. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Calvin Jr. $1 million for each year his father was expected to live, for a total of $48 million.