On July 14, 2011, at approximately 11 a.m., plaintiff Rachel Ragatz, 29, a graduate student, was driving north on Interstate 505 in Solano County when she collided at a high speed with the rear of a non-emergency California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection truck that had been parked in the center median by Jeffrey Bravo, a Cal Fire Communications Operator. Bravo, acting in the course and scope of his employment with the state, had stopped the truck in response to a vegetation fire on the west side of the freeway. When Ragatz struck the truck, she sustained a traumatic brain injury, and fractures to her right arm, leg and knee. John Marquess Truscott, acting as Ragatz’s conservator, sued Bravo and Bravo’s employer, the state of California. Truscott alleged that Bravo was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the state was vicariously liable for his actions. Ragatz claimed she has no recollection of the accident due to the severity of her brain injury. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that no witnesses observed the actual impact. However, counsel contended that, according to the physical damage and evidence on the roadway, Ragatz struck the rear of Bravo’s truck at freeway speed in the left portion of the left lane without any braking or skid marks preceding the impact. As a result, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Bravo failed to park his vehicle fully in the center median, as the right, rear portion of Cal Fire truck was protruding three feet into the left lane of northbound 505. Thus, counsel contended that Bravo was solely responsible for the accident by failing to clear the subject left lane and failing to put on any type of emergency lights, creating a hazard. Bravo told the investigating California Highway Patrol officer that he pulled completely out of the left lane and fully into the center median, and further testified as to that at trial. Thus, defense counsel contended that the accident was solely the fault of Ragatz, in that she rear-ended Bravo’s truck at freeway speed without any deceleration or attempt to maneuver around the subject vehicle. In addition, the state contended it had immunity since the truck was involved in firefighting activities at the time of the crash., Ragatz was rendered unconscious at the scene of the accident and was subsequently airlifted to an emergency room. She was diagnosed with a severe traumatic brain injury with intracranial parenchymal hemorrhage, along with a subarachnoid hemorrhage. She was also diagnosed with numerous facial fractures, a right, dominant humeral fracture, a right femoral fracture, a right comminuted patella fracture, and multiple lacerations and contusions. Ragatz had a Glasgow Coma Scale of 3, and was deemed not likely to survive her by the hospital’s medical staff. She underwent numerous operations for her skull and orthopedic , and ultimately regained consciousness roughly three weeks after the accident. She was then able to begin rehabilitation. Ragatz was left with a significant brain injury and cognitive defects, but she claimed that through rigorous rehabilitation she made a miraculous recovery to the point where she ultimately was able to return to activities of daily living. Specifically, she claimed that she is able to care for herself as long as she has constant and capable supervision. However, Ragatz claimed she still remains at serious risk due to her impulsive behavior and ongoing impairment of her memory, concentration and motor skills. She further claimed she continues to have balance problems and challenges with interpersonal relationships. Although Ragatz was not employed at the time of the accident, she claimed she had intended to seek employment once she completed her Master’s program in civil engineering and environmental studies. She alleged that even though she was ultimately awarded her Master’s, she will still suffer a significant loss of income in the range of $4 million. Ragatz also claimed she incurred $2.8 million in medical expenses and sought further damages for her ongoing life care needs for the remainder of her life, as well as damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Ragatz made a miraculous recovery, that she was able to complete the final steps of her Masters, and that she remained engaged and was to still be married. Thus, counsel contended that while she suffered a very serious injury, she was going to be able to recover most of her pre-incident level of functioning.