On Aug. 24, 2010, plaintiff James Paul Anderson, 24, a law school student at the University of Wisconsin Law School, and his wife Ashley Anderson, 24, a veterinary student at the same university, were visiting their respective families in Patterson. After dropping his wife off at her parent’s house, the Anderson family left to celebrate Mr. Anderson’s birthday at a restaurant in the nearby town of Turlock. Mr. Anderson was seated in the backseat of a vehicle driven by his father, with his mother in the front seat and his younger brother in backseat with him. The Anderson family was driving on East Las Palmas Avenue, a rural road in Stanislaus County that connects Patterson to Turlock. Until 2002, East Las Palmas Avenue is a two-way, asphalt paved roadway running in an east-west alignment and is lined by approximately four hundred palm trees on both sides of the roadway. The trees stand approximately 20 to 25 feet high, are approximately 100 years old, and have historical and cultural value to the community. As the Anderson family drove into an intersection on eastbound East Las Palmas Avenue, they were broadsided by James Rowell, who was driving a Chevrolet Astrovan and had entered the intersection from northbound Elm Avenue. Rowell failed to stop at the posted stop sign at the intersection and his blood alcohol level was measured at .09 percent. As a result of the collision, Mr. Anderson fractured his neck, rendering him quadriplegic. His father, mother and younger brother were all killed in the crash. Rowell also died at the accident scene. Mr. Anderson sued Rowell’s estate and the maintainer of the intersection, the county of Stanislaus. Mr. Anderson alleged that Rowell was negligent in the operation of his Astrovan and that the county was negligent for failing to repair the intersection’s dangerous condition. Rowell’s estate agreed to settle by tending Rowell’s $50,000 policy limits. Thus, litigation commenced against Stanislaus County only. Mr. Anderson’s counsel asserted that the intersection of East Las Palmas Avenue and Elm Avenue was a known dangerous condition and that this condition was a substantial factor in causing the collision. Counsel contended that the county was liable for the collision by failing to install all-way stop signs at the intersection or take any other remedial action prior to the collision. Counsel further contended that if such action had been done, Mr. Anderson’s father would have stopped his vehicle at the eastbound stop sign and avoided the collision entirely. According to Mr. Anderson’s counsel, neighbors believed that East Las Palmas Avenue became dangerous upon completion of a road-widening project in 2002, when the county of Stanislaus added a center left-turn lane to the roadway that moved each of the travel lanes out laterally and, thus, closer to the bordering palm trees. Counsel contended that as a result, sight distance was dramatically decreased for Elm Avenue traffic attempting to cross or turn on to East Las Palmas Avenue. Counsel noted that Elm Avenue is a two-way asphalt street running north to south in the same unincorporated area of Patterson, and counsel contended that although Elm Avenue was controlled by stop signs, the road widening project forced motorists to creep past the stop limit line and into East Las Palmas Avenue’s lanes of travel before knowing whether it was safe to proceed. Mr. Anderson’s counsel further contended that a privately owned almond orchard located at the southwest corner of the East Las Palmas and Elm intersection exacerbated matters by effectively hiding the intersection from those traveling east on East Las Palmas Avenue, and further complicated Elm Avenue motorists’ already treacherous attempts to cross or turn onto East Las Palmas Avenue. In addition, counsel noted that in early 2005, 132 neighbors of the intersection signed a petition directed to the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors requesting that the intersection be equipped with all-way stop signs because “the intersection…is a deadly accident waiting to happen and most certainly needs to be remedied as soon as possible.” As a result, in October 2005, a traffic engineer from the county went out to the intersection and drew plans for installation of a four-way stop, which included overhead flashing beacons. Shortly thereafter, stop sign poles were delivered as well as the wiring for the electrification of the overhead beacon. The cost for such modification was less than $10,000. However, Mr. Anderson’s counsel contended that the Director of the Public Works Department of the County decided to change the plans and present an alternative to the Board of Supervisors for the installation of traffic signals at a cost of $750,000. Although the alternative plan was authorized in 2007, the signals were not installed until January 2013. The county’s counsel defended on a number of grounds, primarily asserting design immunity based on the 2002 roadway widening project. The county’s counsel also asserted that because of Rowell’s action of running the stop sign in an impaired state, any alleged dangerous condition at the intersection was not the cause of the accident. The court denied the county’s motion for summary judgment based primarily on their claim of design immunity. Shortly thereafter, the court denied the county’s motion for trifurcation of the issues of design immunity, liability and damages., Mr. Anderson sustained serious , while his father, mother and brother died at the scene. His father, plaintiffs’ decedent James Donald Anderson, was 50 years old. The mother, plaintiffs’ decedent Emma Anderson, was 44 years old. The younger brother, plaintiffs’ decedent Andrew Anderson, was 14 years old. The surviving occupant of the Anderson vehicle, James Paul Anderson, suffered a complete spinal cord tear (a burst fracture) at the C6 level with associated quadriplegia as well as substantial orthopedic . He was subsequently airlifted to Doctors Medical Center in Modesto, where he remained in critical condition for 10 days. He was then flown by medical ambulance jet back to Madison, Wis., so that his care could be managed at the University Hospital. The plaintiffs’ experts opined that lifetime care for James Paul Anderson (at present value) was between $11 million and $19 million. Thus, Mr. Anderson sought recovery for his past and future medical costs, and loss of earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. In addition, Mr. Anderson sought recovery of damages for the wrongful deaths of his father, mother and brother. His wife, Ashley Anderson, sought recovery for her loss of consortium.