On Sept. 21, 2012, plaintiff Roberto Davila, 48, a laborer for Navajo Pipeline Inc. and a member of Local Union 185, was working at the Fiddyment Road Widening Project in Roseville, near Sacramento, pursuant to a written subcontract with the general contractor on the project, DeSilva Gates Construction. After lunch, Davila and his crew were driving around the job site in a pickup truck, picking up debris and performing work. Davila and his foreman stood on the back bumper of the pickup truck as it drove around, and Davila held on using his right, dominant arm. At the same time, an employee of DeSilva Gates, James Derby, was operating a 15,000-pound skip loader with the intention of meeting an inspector at the project. However, Derby became distracted and ran into the pickup that Davila was riding on, causing the bucket blade of the skip loader to strike the back of Davila’s left knee. As a result, Davila fell to the ground, and he claimed to his right shoulder, lower back, and left knee. Davila sued Derby and Derby’s employer, DeSilva Gates Construction. Davila alleged that Derby was negligent in the operation of the skip loader by not paying proper attention and that DeSilva Gates was vicariously liable for Derby’s actions. DeSilva Gates subsequently brought a third-party claim against Navajo Pipeline, seeking indemnity pursuant to a written subcontract. Counsel for DeSilva Gates admitted that Derby was negligent, but contended that Davila was improperly and unsafely riding on the back bumper of the pickup truck, which is a violation of Navajo Pipeline’s own company safety rules. Counsel also contended that if Davila was not violating company’s rules, he would not have been struck by Derby. DeSilva Gates’ counsel further contended that Navajo Pipeline’s supervisor was negligent for failing to instruct Davila to get off the pickup’s bumper and that the supervisor’s failure to do so placed Davila in a position to be injured. Thus, DeSilva Gates’ counsel argued that both Davila and Navajo Pipeline were negligent and that their negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about Davila’s . Counsel for Navajo Pipeline argued that Derby and DeSilva Gates were solely responsible for the incident, precluding any indemnity pursuant to Civil Code § 2782., Davila sustained a crush injury to his left knee, a lumbar herniation, and a Type II superior labral tear from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesion of his right shoulder. He was subsequently taken immediately to a hospital. For treatment, Davila received steroid injections to his knee and shoulder. He then underwent a shoulder arthroscopy six months after the incident, followed by a knee arthroscopy six months after that. In addition, he underwent a laminectomy six months before trial. Prior to his , Davila was a 27-year veteran laborer for Navajo Pipeline. He worked an average of 2300 full-time hours per year for 20 years. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Davila would eventually need two total knee replacements, as Davila’s right leg was compensating for his left knee’s deficiency. Counsel also contended that Davila would require a two-level lumbar fusion, as recommended by his treating neurosurgeon, and epidural steroid injections in his neck for pain. Davila claimed that he can no longer walk without a cane or lift more than 10 pounds. He also claimed that he can no longer stand for longer than 20 minutes. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that Davila is now permanently disabled and will never be able to return to work as a construction laborer. Counsel contended that as a result, Davila will require enrollment into a functional restoration program in a workers’ compensation setting to deal with his limitations. Thus, Davila sought recovery of future medical costs, past and future loss of earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. (His past medical costs were covered by workers’ compensation.) Plaintiff Yanet Chavez filed a derivative claim, seeking recovery for her loss of consortium, but her claim was dismissed for waiver of costs prior to trial. Counsel for DeSilva Gates admitted that the accident injured Davila’s knee and shoulder, but disputed that Davila’s back injury was due to the subject incident. Counsel contended that Davila had degeneration for all the alleged areas of injury and that Davila’s alleged pain and limitations are all due to the degeneration, and not from the subject accident. DeSilva Gates’ counsel further contended that Davila was disabled only because of his back injury, which was not caused by the subject incident.