On Jan. 11, 2014, plaintiff Eric Carlson, 54, a CalTrans lead road worker, was driving his Toyota Prius at about 60 mph on eastbound California State Route 70, heading from his shift in Beckwourth, in Plumas County, to his home in Verdi, Nevada. A California Highway Patrol officer driving a sport utility vehicle in front of Carlson ultimately decided to give chase to a speeder heading in the opposite direction. As a result, the officer did a sudden U-turn, causing Carlson to hit his brakes. However, Carlson was unable to stop in time and broadside collision with the CHP vehicle occurred at about 45 mph. Carlson claimed to his back. Carlson sued the California Highway Patrol. Carlson alleged that the officer was negligent in the operation of the SUV and that the California Highway Patrol was vicariously liable for the officer’s actions. The California Highway Patrol conceded negligence., Carlson claimed he injured his back in the accident. Carlson alleged that he was initially stunned by the collision, but he denied losing consciousness even though he could not remember anything between the sound of crunching metal and finding himself stopped. An ambulance subsequently arrived, and emergency medical technicians asked Carlson where he was hurt. Carlson claimed that he had pain to his back, neck, right elbow, and left knee. As a result, the EMTs strapped Carlson to a board in order to take cervical-spine precautions and took him to Eastern Plumas District Hospital, in Portola, where Carlson was evaluated for a neck injury. No fractures were found, so the facility discharged him with pain medications. Carlson claimed that over the next week, his neck did not bother him, but his back pain was so intense that he went to an urgent care clinic three times looking for relief. During the first two visits to the clinic, he was given pain medication and sent home, but on the third time, he was told to go see a doctor. He claimed that it was only then that he realized that he had not been seeing a doctor. On the following day, Carlson went to Truckee Tahoe Medical Center, in Truckee, and was referred to physical therapy, which he faithfully underwent for weeks. However, he claimed his lower back pain only worsened. In February 2014, Carlson developed blood clots that resulted in a pulmonary embolism. As a result, he had to be hospitalized for three days to undergo treatment for deep vein thrombosis. Carlson was subsequently off work from Jan. 11, 2014, until Aug. 4, 2014. He claimed that when he returned to work, he was physically unable to perform the tasks of a lead worker, as he was unable to lift items, or stand or sit for anything but short periods. Carlson contended that because he had been a popular and prodigious worker before the collision, his crew covered for him so that he would be able to continue working by mostly directing others. However, in early October 2015, he was sent home from work and told not to return until he was off pain medication. Carlson claimed that in an effort to get back to work, he consulted with a neurosurgeon in Reno, who told him he had a pars defect (a crack, or a loss of bone, in the spinal column between the facet joints). He alleged that neurosurgeon told him the injury either was the result of trauma, or was congenital and quiescent until the trauma of the motor vehicle accident. As a result, Carlson was told that he needed a 360-degree surgery, whereby a general surgeon would go in through his stomach, move his intestines to one side, and then the neurosurgeon would go in and remove the L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 discs. The spinal column would then be fused at the lumbar level. The neurosurgeon would then turn Carlson over and go through the back to put the fused levels in cages to prevent instability caused by the disc removals. Carlson ultimately agreed to undergo the surgery so that he could get his life back, and it was scheduled to be performed on Dec. 21, 2015. Prior to the accident, Carlson was an avid outdoorsman who hunted, drove all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, water-skied, and played various sports. However, he claimed that following the crash, he was unable to perform many of the activities he enjoyed. The plaintiff’s expert in physical medicine, who examined and evaluated Carlson for purposes of trial, testified as to Carlson’s physical condition. The plaintiff’s expert neuropsychologist testified as to Carlson’s alleged cognitive impairment due to a concussion and testified to Carlson’s alleged pain and depression. Thus, Carlson sought recovery of past and future medical costs, past and future lost wages, past and future loss of household services, and past and future pain and suffering. Carlson’s wife, plaintiff Tammy Carlson, 54, a homemaker, testified that she met her husband in high school when she was 15 and he 16. They married after her graduation from Truckee High School and had a devoted relationship, including a very active sex life over 35 years. She also testified about how they raised two children and spent all their non-working time together. However, Ms. Carlson claimed that after the accident, her husband was so incapacitated by his back pain that he was unable to participate in any physical activities and had to spend all his non-working time lying down. She also claimed that their sex life came to a near end and that their marriage suffered to the point where they contemplated separating. Ms. Carlson claimed that as a result, she began suffering from depression and started going to counseling. Thus, Ms. Carlson sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, the Carlsons’ case was strongly supported by the testimony of Ms. Carlson, the Carlsons’ daughter, and Eric’s boss and co-worker, all of who compared how Mr. Carlson was before the accident to who he became after the incident. Defense counsel noted that the plaintiffs’ own expert in physical medicine counseled Mr. Carlson to get a second opinion before he underwent the proposed surgery. (Of note, after the verdict, one of the jurors, who called herself a patient advocate, urged Mr. Carlson not to undergo the surgery.) Defense counsel challenged causation and alleged damages. Specifically, counsel argued that Mr. Carlson was not hurt beyond sprains and strains. The defense’s expert economist minimized Mr. Carlson’s claim of financial losses. Thus, defense counsel asked the jury to award only $200,000 to $250,000 as fair compensation for Mr. and Ms. Carlson.