On Oct. 12, 2017, plaintiff Ruben Abagyan, 58, a professor, was struck by a motor vehicle. The incident occurred on the southbound side of La Jolla Shores Drive, alongside its intersection at Downwind Way, in San Diego. The vehicle’s driver, Joel Linden, was executing a left turn onto the southbound side of La Jolla Shores Drive, from the westbound side of Downwind Way. Abagyan suffered an injury of his head. Abagyan sued Linden and the roadway’s maintainer, the city of San Diego. The lawsuit alleged that Linden was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. The lawsuit further alleged that the city negligently created a dangerous condition that contributed to the accident. Abagyan’s counsel contended that motorists turning left onto La Jolla Shores Drive had to wait for traffic coming uphill on La Jolla Shores Drive to clear first and then wait for the downhill traffic going south on La Jolla Shores Drive to clear. Both measures had to be completed before the motorist checked for pedestrians. Abagyan’s counsel asserted that the city created an intersection that made it too difficult for motorists to safely complete a left turn from Downwind Way. Abagyan’s human-factors and traffic-engineering experts submitted reports in which they opined that Linden would have had little to no chance of seeing Abagyan prior to the accident, given the amount of time required to allow traffic to clear. The impact occurred in a crosswalk on the downhill side of La Jolla Shores Drive. A traffic study showed that 95 percent of motorists on Downwind Way turned left at the intersection, thereby crossing the crosswalk. Abagyan’s counsel contended that if the crosswalk had been located on the uphill side of La Jolla Shores Drive, the majority of turning vehicles would not cross the crosswalk. Abagyan’s counsel also claimed that the city had been aware of prior instances in which pedestrians had nearly been struck by turning vehicles in that crosswalk. The city moved the crosswalk to the uphill side of La Jolla Shores Drive after the accident. Linden claimed that he never saw Abagyan prior to or after the accident. The city’s counsel contended that the intersection was reasonably safe in its design. Counsel contended that, at the time of the accident, the intersection had reflectorized crosswalk warning signs, advance crosswalk-warning signs, roadway markings, a high-visibility and continental crosswalk, and LED street lighting. Counsel also contended that, subsequent to the installation of those safety features in 2015, there were no reported pedestrian-versus-vehicle incidents at the intersection. In addition, the city’s counsel asserted that, prior to the accident, the city had conducted traffic evaluations and studies that determined that additional traffic safety devices were not warranted. The city’s counsel also contended that Linden should have been able to see Abagyan in the intersection before the accident. Linden testified at deposition that he was familiar with the intersection and the presence of the crosswalk, but that his view of Abagyan in the crosswalk was likely blocked by the A-pillar of his own vehicle. Linden also testified that there was nothing obscuring his view of the crosswalk from the time he began his turn until the moment of impact. The city’s counsel further contended that Abagyan should have utilized a pedestrian overpass located approximately 30 yards north of the intersection. According to the city’s counsel, the parties’ respective accident-reconstruction experts agreed that Abagyan stepped in front of Linden’s vehicle seconds after Linden had begun his turn. In addition, the city’s counsel asserted that the evidence indicated that the accident occurred because of an error in judgment by Linden and by Abagyan’s apparent failure to observe and yield to Linden’s oncoming vehicle., Abagyan suffered a skull fracture and resultant bleeding that damaged his brain. He was taken to a hospital, where he remained in intensive care for eight days. Abagyan claimed that he was eventually able to return to teaching, but that he still suffers headaches and decreased energy as a result of his injury. Abagyan sought recovery of past and future medical expenses and damages for past and future pain and suffering. His wife sought recovery of damages for loss of consortium.