On April 8, 2009, plaintiff Gerald Spindel, an ophthalmologist in his 50s, was driving east along Tucker Road in Napa County with plaintiff Linda Lavoie, a homemaker, in the passenger seat. When Spindel was midway through a left turn onto southbound State Route 29, his vehicle was struck on the driver’s side by a vehicle that Spindel claimed he was unable to see due to an overgrown tree on a property owned by the state of California. Spindel injured his hip, arm and shoulder in the accident, while Lavoie injured her back and neck. Spindel and Lavoie sued the county of Napa, the state of California and the driver of the other vehicle, Shaina Hasso. They alleged that the state and county failed to maintain public property and had created a dangerous condition. They also alleged that Hasso was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. The county and Hasso were ultimately dismissed from the case on the first day of trial, and the matter continued against the state only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that a tree on state property was in violation of the California Department of Transportation’s sight distance requirements. Counsel further contended that the growth blocked the view from the west side of the street and, therefore, created a dangerous condition. Spindel and Lavoie, who were married at the time of trial, claimed that the state should have been aware of the condition and trimmed the tree more frequently. Plaintiffs’ counsel called two witnesses who lived along Route 29 near the allegedly overgrown tree. They testified that in the several years they had lived in the area, they never saw maintenance crews trim the subject tree and that they, themselves, had had difficulty at that intersection. The plaintiffs’ human factors expert testified that although Hasso was able to see the plaintiffs’ vehicle, Spindel would not have been able to see her if he had been looking for traffic coming from his right. The state contended that the area was not dangerous and that the tree had been properly maintained. It also introduced maintenance records that indicated that the tree had been properly trimmed and maintained. Thus, the state’s counsel argued that Spindel had caused the accident by failing to yield the right of way. Hasso testified that she saw the plaintiffs’ vehicle stopped along Tucker Road prior to the collision. The defense’s human factors expert opined that, due to the reciprocal site distance, if Hasso was able to see the plaintiffs’ vehicle, then Spindel should have been able to see her., Spindel sustained a non-displaced right pelvic fracture, multiple broken ribs, bilateral pneumothorax, a fracture of the right fibular head and an acromioclavicular joint separation in the dominant, right shoulder. He was subsequently taken by helicopter to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, where he remained for some two weeks before beginning rehabilitation treatments. Spindel underwent physical therapy for his shoulder, and continued to treat with home exercises and over-the-counter medications. He also required a wheelchair and a walker to ambulate for some time. In addition, surgery was recommended to address his shoulder separation, but he declined. Spindel claimed that as a result of the shoulder injury, he could no longer perform cataract surgeries, which significantly affected his earnings and caused his firm to fire an additional employee. The plaintiffs’ expert economist opined that due to the market share and the growing population of elderly people requiring cataract surgeries, Spindel’s business lost up to $12 million in potential revenues. Lavoie sustained soft-tissue of the back and neck, and was taken by ambulance to Queen of the Valley Medical Center in Napa Valley. She subsequently treated with physical therapy for approximately one year. Lavoie claimed that her rendered her unable to perform regular household activities and gardening. Thus, Spindel and Lavoie each asked the jury to award damages for their past and future pain and suffering, as well as for their lost earnings and past medical expenses. Defense counsel contended that Spindel’s business had not been adversely affected by his , as his practice reported increased earnings after the accident. Counsel further argued that although Spindel was unable to perform the cataract surgeries, he was able to perform other procedures.