On Oct. 8, 2007, plaintiffs’ decedent Matthew Will, 30, a Heavy Fire Equipment Operator for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, was battling the Palo Colorado fire in Monterey County with a bulldozer. Will’s bulldozer was a Caterpillar D6N XL Track Type Tractor that was equipped with a Rollover Protection Structure and a forestry arrangement, which included a brush screen. The bulldozer’s only operator restraint device was a two-point lap belt. As Will was cutting a bench into the side of the ridge below a stuck tractor that he was attempting to free, the ground slid out from beneath his unit. The tractor completed at least two full rolls down the hill, traveling approximately 150 feet, before striking the adjacent slope in a ravine at the bottom of the hill. The roll and impact caused head and brain trauma to Will, resulting in his death. Will’s wife, Diana Will, and their children, Trysten and Elsie, filed suit against Caterpillar Inc., as well as against Thompson Machinery Commerce and Peterson Tractor Co. They claimed that the bulldozer was defectively and negligently designed, resulting in Matthew Will’s wrongful death. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the Rollover Protection Structure on Matthew Will’s bulldozer was designed and manufactured by Caterpillar. Counsel also contended that Caterpillar designed the forestry arrangement with brush screen and equipped and installed the two-point lap belt. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that after successfully cutting a fire line down a hill on the east flank of the fire, Will returned to the top of the hill to help a fellow CAL FIRE Heavy Fire Equipment Operator whose bulldozer was stuck on the hill. However, the ground slid out from under his bulldozer, and Will was thrown around inside the bulldozer as it rolled down the hill. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that a multi-point operator restraint and/or removal of the steel mounting bracket would have prevented Will’s death. Thompson Machinery and Peterson Tractor were ultimately dismissed by agreement after defense counsel filed a non-suit motion following the close of the plaintiffs’ case. Caterpillar’s counsel argued that there wasn’t any real evidence showing that the decedent was cutting a fire line or that he did not return to the top of the hill to help his friend. Instead, counsel contended that Will went to the lateral side of a spur ridge, to the side of the fire. Thus, Caterpillar’s counsel argued that the use of the track-type tractor on the steep side of the ridge posed an unforeseeable misuse of the product, contrary to the instructions and warnings provided with the product, guidelines issued by CAL FIRE, and the standard of care in the industry. Counsel further argued that the risks posed by the alternative restraint systems suggested by plaintiffs’ counsel vastly outweighed their benefits and that the true cause of the incident was negligence on the part of Will and CAL FIRE., Matthew Will sustained multiple traumatic and died. He was 30. The decedent was survived by his wife and children, Elsie and Trysten. Will’s family sought recovery of wrongful death damages, including loss of income, loss of household services, and pain and suffering. The decedent’s wife also sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium.