At around 9:30 p.m. on Dec. 9, 2012, plaintiff Ofosu Ofori, 38, a campus supervisor for a charter school, was driving a Mazda MDX on northbound San Francisquito Canyon Road, in Santa Clarita. When he was north of the intersection with Stator Lane, Ofori’s vehicle collided, nearly head-on, with an unmarked county of Los Angeles police vehicle, a Ford Crown Victoria, operated by plaintiff Carrie Ann Stuart, 47, a sheriff’s captain. Stuart was on duty, traveling south on San Francisquito Canyon Road, heading to pick up her daughter before going to work. It was noted that near the intersection with Stator Lane, the southbound lane of San Francisquito Canyon Road had a leftward curve downhill that ended in a straightaway, while the northbound lane had a straightaway slightly uphill. The speed limit in that area was also 55 mph. The collision was not witnessed, but Stuart’s vehicle was found across the northbound lane, perpendicular to the direction of traffic, facing west, with the front of her vehicle slightly in the southbound lane. Stuart’s vehicle was also on fire and ultimately burned down to the frame. Ofori’s vehicle was found on the other side, on the east shoulder, nearly falling off the cliff. However, both Ofori and Stuart were rescued and removed from their respective vehicles by third parties, but Ofori and Stuart both sustained head and neither had a recollection of the collision. Ofori sued Stuart and Stuart’s employer, the county of Los Angeles. Ofori alleged that Stuart was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that the county was liable for Ofori’s actions while in the course and scope of her employment. Stuart filed a separate claim against Ofori, alleging that Ofori was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. In addition, the county filed a separate intervening claim based Stuart’s workers’ compensation lien and an intervening claim in regard to the damage to the police vehicle. The matters were ultimately consolidated. However, the county’s intervening claim regarding recovery of the workers’ compensation lien was severed from the underlying case and was not presented at trial, which originally resulted in a mistrial. Thus, the matter proceeded to a retrial. During the retrial, Ofori’s accident reconstruction expert, Thomas Fugger Jr., (who was called by both Ofori’s plaintiff’s and defense attorneys) opined that Stuart must have lost control in an oversteer situation and crossed the double yellow line into Ofori’s lane of travel and that a secondary slap from the nearly head-on collision caused the vehicles to land where they did. However, on cross-examination, the expert testified that there was certain evidence at the scene that could not be conclusively related to the scene. Specifically, there were some tire marks on the roadway that also appeared to be there in a Google street view prior to the accident. The expert also admitted that he did not include other factors in his reconstruction that he could not conclusively link to the accident. Stuart’s accident reconstruction expert, Robert Koetting, opined that Ofori was on the westbound shoulder, facing north, going against traffic, on the wrong side of the road, and then pulled off the shoulder in front of Stuart’s vehicle. Thus, the expert opined that Ofori was traveling at 15 to 20 mph, coming off the shoulder, while Stuart was in her lane traveling at 50 to 60 mph when the collision occurred in Stuart’s lane. (Ofori’s counsel moved to limit Stuart/the county to one accident reconstruction expert, and the motion was granted. Thus, A. Keith Miller was not called to testify, and the county’s counsel, instead, used Stuart’s accident reconstruction expert, Koetting, at trial.) Stuart’s counsel moved to have the police report, which put the area of impact in Ofori’s lane of travel (the northbound lane) and all of the opinions of the officers regarding the area of impact and causation, excluded from trial on numerous grounds, such as Vehicle Code § 20013 (which prohibited police reports’ admission at trial), impermissible hearsay for which there is no exception, violation of People v. Sanchez, Evidence Code § 352, and lack of foundation. Judge William MacLaughlin excluded an officer’s opinions regarding causation of the accident, but after an Evidence Code § 402 hearing was conducted, the lead investigating California Highway Patrol officer was permitted to opine as to the area of impact as depicted in the traffic collision report. MacLaughlin also allowed the other CHP officers to comment on the area of impact as shown in the traffic collision report pursuant to Evidence Code § 1280. As a result, during cross-examinations, Stuart and her attorneys argued that the physical evidence depicted in the photographs of the collision did not support the evidentiary conclusions described in the traffic collision report prepared by the CHP. As a result, the investigating highway patrolman claimed that it was possible that the area of impact could be in a different spot, including in the southbound lane, which was Stuart’s travel lane., The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court. Ofori and Stuart both sustained traumatic brain as a result of the collision and were subsequently transported to Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital, in Valencia. However, Ofori was transported by ambulance, while Stuart was carried by helicopter. Ofori was in and out of consciousness while he was being transported to the hospital. He claimed that his last memory on the day of the accident was turning onto the street 0.6 miles south of where the collision occurred. It was determined that Ofori sustained a moderate to mild traumatic brain injury and a fracture of an ankle. He underwent emergency treatment and made a significant recovery. Ofori was ultimately able to return to work at a charter school, where he worked with his wife, but he claimed he has not fully recovered. He alleged that he is left with anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident. Stuart was in a coma for many months. She claimed that her last memory was weeks before the collision occurred. Stuart sustained multiple pelvic and lower extremity fractures, and a brachial plexus injury from the collision. She was also determined to have sustained a severe traumatic brain injury, which allegedly caused a significant shift in her personality. As a result, she received a 100 percent disability rating from workers’ compensation and medically retired from the sheriff’s department. Stuart has not fully recovered, and she has repeatedly been in home care and rehabilitation facilities. Most recently, she had been to Casa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare, in Pomona, three times per week. Stuart claimed that she is left with an insensate left, non-dominant arm due to the brachial plexus injury, but admitted that she can currently walk again after recovering from the multiple pelvic and lower extremity fractures. However, she claimed that it is unlikely that she will ever fully recover. At the time of the collision, Stuart was single and had children, with her youngest child being 11 or 12 years old. At that time, she was engaged, but her fiancé left her. Thus, Stuart alleged that she would continue to need future care due to her brain injury and her left arm. Her workers’ compensation lien alone was around $2.2 million and, according to defense counsel for Ofori, questions during voir dire suggested that Stuart would have sought $40 million during the damages phase of the trial.