At around 8:30 a.m. on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, plaintiff Joseph Wessling, 44, a national sales manager, was riding his Gios Torino road bicycle with his fiancée, Catherine Fahey, within the marked bicycle lane on Freedom Boulevard, in Aptos. Freedom Boulevard is a county road that is owned and maintained by the county of Santa Cruz. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (also known as AT&T) owns and maintains a number of the manhole covers on Freedom Boulevard, including manhole cover “MH749.” Wessling and Fahey were travelling west on Freedom Boulevard when Wessling’s bicycle collided with a vehicle operated by Sandra Thomas, who was traveling behind Wessling and Fahey within the westbound travel lane of Freedom Boulevard. Wessling sued Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (which was initially erroneously sued as AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc.), the county of Santa Cruz, and Thomas. Wessling alleged that Pacific Bell was negligent in the repair and maintenance of a manhole cover (MH749) on Freedom Boulevard, creating a dangerous condition. He also alleged that the county was negligent for allowing the dangerous condition of public property (the roadway) and that Thomas was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. Migdalia Camacho and Gordon Hulme were also initially named as defendants, but they were dismissed for a waiver of costs in late 2014, as they had no liability. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that, unbeknownst to Wessling or Fahey, the cover for MH749 was within the bike lane and sat approximate three inches below the grade of the roadway surface. Counsel contended that as a result, the location of the manhole reduced the usable space of the bike lane to less than two feet between the manhole cover and the travel lane on westbound Freedom Boulevard. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Pacific Bell had a duty to maintain the manhole cover at grade level, especially since the manhole cover was within the middle of a bike lane, and that leaving the condition of MH749 at three inches below the grade of the bike lane created a dangerous condition. Counsel also argued that due to the location of the manhole cover being within a bike lane, which was owned and maintained by the county of Santa Cruz, the condition of the bike lane also constituted a dangerous condition of public property. The plaintiff’s bicycling expert, who specialized in bicycle safety and standard of care, concluded that the below-grade manhole dangerously reduced the usable space of the bike lane, as a bicycle needs four feet of usable space to be safely operated, and that the subject bike lane had less than two feet. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert concluded that, based upon the GPS data on Wessling’s phone, Wessling was traveling approximately 28 mph while passing the cover of MH749 and that based upon the speed reduction on the GPS and the damage to Wessling and his bicycle, the impact happened within one second of MH749. The expert concluded that as a result, the condition of the manhole was a substantial factor in causing Wessling to move to his left, where he was hit by the vehicle being driven by Thomas. In regard to Thomas, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Thomas was negligent due to the fact that her travel lane was approximately 15 feet wide near the vicinity of the manhole and that passing within one foot of the bicycle lane violated California Vehicle Code 21750, failure to pass with a safe distance. Thomas claimed that she was traveling in the middle of her lane and that Wessling turned out into the side of her car less than a second before impact. She alleged that, prior to the accident, she saw Wessling point to the ground, signaling Fahey of the dangerous condition of MH749. She claimed that shortly thereafter, she heard a “thud” on side of her car and that when she looked into her rear-view mirror, she saw Wessling falling to the ground and sliding to a stop in the middle of Freedom Boulevard. Thus, she claimed she had no ability to avoid the collision. Thomas’ counsel noted that Fahey told the investigating California Highway Patrol officer that the impact happened less than one foot into the travel lane, while Wessling was going around the manhole cover. Thus, Thomas’ counsel argued that Thomas was not negligent and that Wessling struck Thomas’ vehicle when he road into the travel lane. Pacific Bell admitted, on the eve of trial, that it was negligent in the use and maintenance of MH749, but claimed that its negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Wessling’s harm. Pacific Bell’s counsel contended that the crash happened approximately three seconds past the manhole. Specifically, counsel argued that Wessling had passed the manhole safely and was beyond the manhole when he inexplicably veered out of the bike lane and struck the left side of the Thomas’ vehicle with his front tire. Counsel further contended that Fahey confirmed that Wessling rode his bike past the Pacific Bell manhole safely, as she stated to the CHP investigating officer that she saw Wessling look back at her after passing manhole cover and then drift into the traffic lane, where his left wheel contacted Thomas’ vehicle, at the approximate location where Wessling came to rest in the street. In addition, Pacific Bell’s counsel noted that Fahey testified that Wessling had ridden approximately 75 to 80 feet beyond the manhole cover when he turned and looked back at her, and then turned his bicycle into the traffic lane. However, Pacific Bell’s counsel contended that approximately two weeks after the accident, Fahey submitted a written “correction” to the CHP report, but that Fahey’s corrections were inconsistent and contrary to the information she provided to the CHP officer on the day of the accident. Counsel also called the investigating CHP officer to testify at trial, and the officer confirmed the information that Fahey provided at the scene, that Wessling was approximately 75 feet to 80 feet west of the manhole when he looked back and moved from the bike lane into the travel lane. Pacific Bell’s counsel further argued that, at deposition, Fahey admitted under oath that the corrections she submitted in writing after the accident were, in fact, incorrect and inaccurate. During defense counsel’s cross-examination of the plaintiff’s bike expert, the expert acknowledged that a bicyclist who loses control of his bike while looking back is in violation of the standard of care relating to bike activities. Defense counsel also noted that the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert testified that Wessling left the bike path/lane “somewhere between 41 feet east of the manhole and 41 feet beyond (west of) the manhole cover.” Defense counsel argued that despite the fact that the plaintiff’s expert could not provide any more accuracy than the 82 feet area, he, nevertheless, testified that the accident occurred “in the vicinity of the manhole cover.” The plaintiff’s expert’s analysis also included his opinion that Wessling “flew” anywhere between 40 feet to 120 feet after making contact with the vehicle before landing, which defense counsel argued contradicted Fahey’s testimony that Wessling hit the ground almost immediately upon contact and came to rest just a few feet beyond the point of contact. Pacific Bell’s accident reconstruction expert testified that Wessling passed the manhole safely, after pointing it out to Fahey, and continued westbound and that Wessling was approximately 75 feet to 80 feet beyond the manhole when he moved from the bike lane into the roadway, causing the accident. Pacific Bell’s counsel argued that the expert’s analysis and opinion was consistent with the evidence, particularly the information that Fahey provided to the CHP investigating officer on the day of the accident. Thus, Pacific Bell’s accident reconstruction expert opined that the subject manhole was not a factor in the accident and that Wessling failed to properly control his bicycle, causing it to move into the travel lane. Pacific Bell’s computer forensic expert testified regarding navigation and GPS issues. Wessling was wearing a GPS unit at the time of the accident, and the expert explained the capabilities of the GPS information available and, most importantly, its significant limitations. Thus, the expert opined that the impact between Wessling and the vehicle occurred approximately 75 feet beyond the manhole. Pacific Bell’s counsel requested that the court instruct the jury that Wessling was negligent per se, in that Wessling violated the Vehicle Code by entering a roadway when it was unsafe to do so. However, the court failed to give the negligence per se jury instruction. The county admitted that its bike lane was hazardous, but denied the hazardous condition met the legal requirement of being “dangerous.” The county’s street design expert opined that MH749 should have been at grade, but aside from the area where MH749 was located, the remainder of the bike lane on Freedom Boulevard was safe. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Pacific Bell’s accident reconstruction and computer forensic experts were heavily impeached on changing their testimony from deposition regarding the point of impact and that the animation from Pacific Bell’s accident reconstruction expert, J.M. Stephenson, was discredited on cross-examination., Although he was wearing a helmet, Wessling suffered significant injuries as a result of this collision. He fractured his skull, his scapula, his clavicle, and four ribs. He was subsequently transported by ambulance to Dominican Hospital, in Santa Cruz, and then airlifted to Regional Medical Center of San Jose. While in the Intensive Care Unit, Wessling developed a pneumothorax and he was determined to have suffered significant brain trauma, including a subdural hemorrhage, diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhaging, diffuse intraparenchymal contusions, and axonal shearing. The majority of the brain trauma was within Wessling’s right, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes. Approximately three years after the crash, Wessling underwent additional brain scans, which confirmed massive lesions of encephalomalacia in his right frontal and temporal lobes, which resulted in permanent, irreversible loss of brain tissue. At the time of the crash, Wessling was the national sales manager of a high-end audio distribution company, working approximately 60 hours per week. However, as a result of his injuries, he eventually resigned his position and moved to Colorado with his now wife, Fahey. Wessling claimed that he is no longer able to work in the high-end audio industry and that he has been limited to working part-time. Thus, Wessling sought recovery of past medical expenses, past lost wages, future lost wages, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. He waived his claim for the cost of future medical care.