On Aug. 11, 2016, plaintiff Scott Lorenzen, 61, a retiree, was motorcycling on Main Street, in Ramona. His motorcycle struck the back, rear panel of a vehicle operated by Maria Velasco, who was making a left turn into a shopping center. Lorenzen laid down the motorcycle, and he claimed that he suffered of his back, a knee and a wrist. Lorenzen sued Velasco and the registered owner of the vehicle, Luis Garcia. Lorenzen alleged that Velasco was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Garcia was vicariously liable for Velasco’s actions. Garcia was dismissed from the case before trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that if Lorenzen had attempted to avoid the collision, the outcome would have been more dangerous than it was. Lorenzen’s motorcycle expert opined that Lorenzen had the right of way, that Lorenzen remained in his lane and was not speeding, and that Velasco’s vehicle was an unexpected hazard. The expert testified what the perception-reaction time would be for a person in encountering an unnecessary hazard, and he calculated that Lorenzen did not have enough time to avoid the collision. The expert also opined that if Lorenzen had gone to the left, he would have encountered oncoming traffic and that, because Velasco never stopped and did not know about the impact until she parked her vehicle, if Lorenzen had gone to the right, he would have struck the front panel of Velasco’s vehicle. The expert concluded that Lorenzen was proper in applying his front and back brakes. Velasco accepted liability, in part, but, at trial, her counsel argued that Lorenzen was also at fault for the crash. Defense counsel contended that Lorenzen was not paying attention and could have avoided the collision. Counsel also contended that motorcyclists have a heightened duty because riding motorcycles is dangerous in itself and that motorcyclists should be able to recognize potential dangers. The defense’s accident-reconstruction expert opined that, because the collision occurred at the back panel of Velasco’s vehicle, Lorenzen had enough time to see the potential danger of Velasco’s vehicle and that, because Lorenzen was on a motorcycle, Lorenzen could have evaluated the danger and made an evasive maneuver or stopped in time., Lorenzen’s left, non-dominant wrist sustained a Smith fracture, in which a fractured piece of bone was displaced toward the direction of the palm, and a displaced fracture of the ulnar styloid process. He claimed that the fractures were caused either by a direct blow to the dorsal forearm or by falling onto his flexed wrists. He also claimed he sustained soft tissue of his back and a knee. Lorenzen was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where his left wrist and hand were casted. He later underwent physical therapy. Because of the displaced natures of his fractures, Lorenzen did not undergo surgery, which plaintiff’s counsel contended was within the realm of reasonableness. Lorenzen also claimed that despite undergoing physical therapy, he continues to suffer pain. Lorenzen’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Lorenzen’s wrist fracture healed with malunion and that Lorenzen may need surgery to correct it. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that, because of the way the wrist fractures healed, Lorenzen would be limited for the rest of his life. Lorenzen sought recovery of more than $500,000 in total damages, which included past and future medical costs, and past and future pain and suffering. The parties stipulated that Lorenzen’s past medical costs totaled $9,473.45, but the jury was allowed to decide whether that amount should be awarded. Defense counsel argued that Lorenzen’s back and knee were pre-existing and that Lorenzen underwent surgeries on his knee and back five years before the accident. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that there was no malunion of the wrist but acknowledged that Lorenzen did have some pain. The expert also opined that Lorenzen would not need surgery.