On Sept. 14, 2007, plaintiff Scott Eveland, 17, a senior and a linebacker with the Mission Hills High School Grizzlies in San Marcos, a town 30 miles north of San Diego, staggered off the football field early in the second quarter during a game at the high school and collapsed on the sidelines. It was ultimately discovered that Scott sustained a traumatic brain injury. Scott, by way of his family; sued the city of San Marcos; the San Marcos Unified School District and the companies that manufactured and reconditioned the helmet, All American Sports Corp., Easton-Bell Sports Inc., which was successor in interest to Riddell Bell Holdings Inc., Riddell Inc., Riddell Sports Inc., Riddell/All American and Athletic Supply Inc. and Varsity Brands Inc. He alleged that the city and school district were negligent for failing to protect him and provide him with proper medical care. He also alleged that the manufacturers and reconditioners of the helmet were negligent for manufacturing a defect product. Plaintiff’s counsel originally asserted that Scott’s injury was likely the result of direct contact sustained in the game, as game film showed helmet to helmet contact on Scott’s forehead area. The plaintiff’s expert opined that had the helmet been properly designed and manufactured, the contact would, at most, have caused a minor injury. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the front pad of Scott’s football helmet, which Riddell manufactured, did not provide safe and proper shock absorption. More specifically, counsel claimed that when the front pad was tested at elevated temperatures to account for the increase in players’ body temperature during activity, the front padding loses shock absorption and becomes hard and, consequently, does not provide adequate protection. However, plaintiff’s counsel added that the crown and side padding for the helmet was manufactured by other companies and did meet the shock absorption standards at elevated temperatures. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that testimony from student trainers, including a former student trainer, reported that Scott had reported that he had been having headaches for at least a week before the game. Based on this testimony, counsel contended that Scott likely suffered the effects of second-impact syndrome, when he was put in the game before recovering from the effects of an earlier concussion, which he did not report to anyone other than the trainers. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the school was aware that Scott might have been suffering from medical problems, but ignored the signs and had Scott play in the game anyway. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that there was a sideline physician available at the game, but that Scott was not administered the proper care. Counsel noted that in 2010, a student trainer came forward and testified that on the Monday before the game, Scott said he had headache, but that by Wednesday he said that it was worse than it was on Monday. The student trainer further claimed that on Friday, the day of the game, she overheard Scott ask one of the trainers if he could sit out the first quarter of the game because he was having headaches and “couldn’t see the football well enough.” The former student trainer also claimed she heard the trainer bring it up to the head coach, but heard the coach yell that, “Scotty was his (expletive) football player and if he wanted to put Scotty in the game he was going to damn well put him in the game.” Plaintiff’s counsel further noted that another student trainer that graduated, but was working with the team to gain an internship, testified that the school trainer advised him that Scott had headaches and visual disturbances before the game and asked not to play, but that the coach put Scott in the game regardless. The Riddell defendants contended that the helmet was not defective and that it significantly exceeded all applicable standards. They also contended that the plaintiff’s allegations were baseless and not supported by technical literature, reliable science or any testing. Thus, they contended that the helmet was not the cause of Scott’s . Furthermore, the Riddell defendants contended that the warnings provided with the helmet clearly stated the risks inherent in the sport of football, as well as properly instructed users, parents and coaches regarding proper medical management of head . However, plaintiff’s counsel responded that meeting this minimum standard was not enough. The school district vigorously and vehemently denied the plaintiff’s allegations regarding, as well as the testimony of the student trainers, regarding putting Scott in the game despite complaining of headaches. It also denied that any of the allegations occurred and claimed that school officials said none of them were aware that Scott might have been suffering medical problems when he stepped onto the field that night. The school district specifically asserted that Scott never told them that he had been suffering medical issues, and that when it questioned Scott’s parents, girlfriend, teammates and best friend, they all denied that Scott told them he had medical issues or that they overheard him say it. The school district’s counsel also asserted that the plaintiff could not identify when the alleged initial concussion occurred prior to the date of the game and was only speculating as to the source of Scott’s original complaints., Scott was transported to the hospital immediately after he collapsed on the sidelines. It was determined that he sustained a traumatic brain injury, including a subdural hematoma and a midline shift of the brain. He also suffered from a severe cerebral edema. Thus, Scott had to undergo immediate decompressive surgery. Physicians subsequently removed Scott’s skull cap during a craniectomy and removed the subdural hematoma. After his surgery, Scott suffered from the typical complications of such neurosurgery, including seizures and multiple brain strokes. About a year later, Scott had a surgery to cosmetically repair the flap indentation from the craniectomy. He was left with significant cognitive and motor deficits, and though his cognitive skills are improving, as of yet, his motor skills have not. Currently, Scott is confined to a wheelchair and cannot stand or walk, and has very limited voluntary movement and ability to speak. Also, someone must support his left arm at the elbow so that he can communicate through an iPad or a specially designed keyboard. Scott claimed that he continues to require full-time care for his activities of daily living. He continues to undergo active therapy, and works with a teacher and occupational therapists. However, despite his residual problems, Scott acknowledged that he was able to earn his high school diploma. According to the plaintiff’s life care planning expert, Scott’s future medicals were estimated at approximately $18 million. However, the school district’s counsel countered that Scott’s future medicals were approximately $3 million to $7 million.