On July 24, 2010, plaintiff Michael Fulton, 40, a marketing manager for a mobile service provider, was operating a 2002 Harley Davidson motorcycle on the eastbound side of Old Julian Highway, also known as State Route 78, in San Diego, with his wife, plaintiff Susanna Fulton, 39, a registered nurse and case coordinator for a children’s hospital, as his passenger. As they entered the intersection with Deer Canyon Drive, a private-access road, they collided into the passenger’s side of a Jeep sport utility vehicle that was driven by Larry McClellan, who was attempting a left turn onto SR-78 from northbound Deer Canyon Drive. The Fultons were subsequently ejected from the motorcycle. Mr. Fulton claimed of his back and ribs, and Ms. Fulton claimed to her back, neck, pelvis, ribs, head, and a foot. Mr. and Ms. Fulton sued the owner/maintainer of the intersection, the state of California. They alleged that the state’s Department of Transportation (Caltrans) failed to repair the intersection’s defective design, creating a dangerous condition. The state brought a third-party action against McClellan, alleging that McClellan was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the collision was caused by a defect in the intersection’s design, which was approved by Caltrans in 1989. Counsel contended that the dangerous condition stemmed from a 1989 encroachment permit, which was issued by Caltrans, that authorized access from Deer Canyon Drive to SR-78 and that the condition violated state Government Code § 835. Specifically, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the continuous length of highway that is visible to a motorist–or sight distance–was inadequate and unsafe and that the state’s design only allowed for 300 feet of “sight distance,” when the state established a “minimum” stopping sight distance of 360 feet. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the state/Caltrans failed to maintain the minimum sight distance that was required at the intersection. The plaintiffs’ traffic engineering expert opined that current speed studies showed that traffic was traveling at the speed limit of 55 mph at the subject location and that, accordingly, there should have been 500 feet of sight distance at that location. In addition, the plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert opined that the motorcycle was at the crest of the hill when McClellan began to move. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that McClellan could not see the motorcycle when he decided to pull into the intersection to make his left turn. The state’s accident reconstruction expert opined that both vehicles were visible to each other before McClellan’s Jeep made a left turn. The defense’s traffic engineering expert testified that given the geometric constraint of the crest’s vertical curve preceding the location of the collision, the existing amount of sight distance at the intersection was reasonable and safe. She noted that no reported accidents had occurred at the intersection site during the 9.5 years preceding the accident and that studies of traffic volumes at the collision site showed that 21 million vehicles passed through the subject location. Thus, she opined that the subject site was operating safely on the date of the collision. The state’s counsel noted that a witness who was traveling on the westbound side of SR-78 claimed that McClellan was looking to his right, in the direction of oncoming, westbound traffic, and had made eye contact prior to making the left turn. Counsel further noted that the witness testified that McClellan appeared to be “gunning it” in order to make a left turn in front of his vehicle. Defense counsel contended that McClellan was suffering vision and hearing impairments, and had failed to look in the direction of eastbound traffic before making his left turn. Counsel argued that if McClellan had looked left, he would have seen the Fultons’ motorcycle in the eastbound lane and, thus, could have avoided the collision. Counsel further argued that the incident involved a “dart out” collision because the Fultons’ motorcycle had crested the hill before McClellan made the left turn, making McClellan solely responsible for the accident., The Fultons were airlifted to the emergency room at Palomar Medical Center, in Escondido. Mr. Fulton sustained a compression fracture of his lumbar spine at the L1 level, a sacrum fracture, and multiple fractured ribs. He subsequently underwent posterior, instrumented fusion from T11 to L2 and decompressive laminectomies from L1 to L12. However, Mr. Fulton developed S1 radiculopathy and neuropathic pain syndrome, requiring conservative therapies that included steroid injections and medications. Thus, Mr. Fulton sought recovery of $5 million in damages for his past pain and suffering. Ms. Fulton sustained a T12 burst fracture resulting in conus medullaris syndrome; cervical fractures at the C6 and C7 levels in her neck; an incomplete L1 burst fracture, a pelvic fracture, multiple fractured ribs, and a mild traumatic brain injury. Upon being admitted to the hospital, she was described as having complete paralysis of the lower extremities. Ms. Fulton was placed in a medically induced coma during the first month of her hospitalization. During that time, she underwent surgery on the anterior and posterior cervical spine, and a thoracolumbar procedure at the T12 level with an anterior decompression and fixation on Aug. 2, 2010. Ten days later, Ms. Fulton underwent a T12 corpectomy with decompression of thecal sac, a T11-12 discectomy with decompression of thecal sac, and a T12-L1 discectomy with decompression of thecal sac. On Aug. 18, 2010, she underwent closed treatment of the lumbar and sacral fractures without bracing. She was then transferred to an acute rehabilitation unit on Aug. 25, 2010, underwent closed treatment of the pelvic ring fractures without manipulation two days later, and remained in the acute rehabilitation unit until Oct. 6, 2010. After her discharge from the hospital, Ms. Fulton received about two months of therapy at home. Ms. Fulton now suffers from incontinence, abnormal gait, foot drop and sensory losses. She also has an intrathecal pain pump and requires a walker to ambulate. She claimed that she continues to suffer from chronic pain. Ms. Fulton’s treating podiatrist testified that Ms. Fulton has had over 40 casts as a result of an ulcer on the bottom of her left heel and opined that Ms. Fulton is at great risk of developing an infection because she cannot feel her feet. The podiatrist also opined that if an infection develops as a result of the ulcer on her left heel, Ms. Fulton would require a below-the-knee amputation of her left leg. In addition, he testified that Ms. Fulton’s lack of sensation in her feet is similar to that of a diabetic and referred to diabetic studies that stated that once one leg is amputated, there is a chance the other one will be amputated within five to 10 years. The plaintiff’s life care planner opined that Ms. Fulton will require 24-hour assistance from a home health attendant because she is a fall risk and cannot ambulate independently. The life care planner also opined that Ms. Fulton is permanently disabled by her and that she will never be able to return to work as a registered nurse/case coordinator at a children’s hospital. The parties agreed that Ms. Fulton’s past medical bills amounted to $1,375,406. Ms. Fulton’s economic expert opined that Ms. Fulton’s past lost earnings totaled $576,814, that Ms. Fulton’s future medical expenses will be in the amount of $11,658,393, that Ms. Fulton’s past non-economic loss will be in the amount of $3,898,473, and that Ms. Fulton’s future non-economic losses totaled $27,289,317. Thus, Ms. Fulton sought recovery for her past and future loss of earnings, past and future medical expenses, and past and future non-economic damages in the amount of $46,781,685. The defense’s expert in foot and ankle orthopedic surgery opined that a future amputation of Ms. Fulton’s leg was extreme and unnecessary. He opined that Ms. Fulton exhibited a good healing potential and that Ms. Fulton’s experience as a registered nurse would assist her with wound care. The defense’s expert physiatrist testified that Ms. Fulton will not require 24-hour home health assistance due to her level of function and ability to perform the activities of daily living.