On Feb. 8, 2018, plaintiff Matthew Rada, 26, a graphic designer, was motorcycling in the northbound high-occupancy vehicle lane of Interstate 405, also known as the San Diego Freeway, in Los Angeles. His motorcycle was struck by a mid-size vehicle operated by Justin Dimapasac, who was veering out of the HOV lane. The impact caused Rada’s motorcycle to cross three lanes of traffic and strike a flatbed trailer. Rada was ejected off his motorcycle and onto the roadway. He sustained to his back, right leg and right hand. Rada sued Dimapasac and the owner of Dimapasac’s vehicle, Dimapasac’s employer, Hardin Irvine Automotive Inc. Rada alleged that Dimapasac was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, which Dimapasac recently repaired, and that Hardin Irvine Automotive was vicariously liable for Rada’s actions. Rada claimed that Dimapasac made a sudden and unexpected turning maneuver and lane change without signaling. He alleged that as a direct result of Dimapasac actions, Dimapasac drove into his right of way and caused the collision. Dimapasac admitted in deposition that he was the sole cause of the collision. Defense counsel stipulated to liability before trial, and the only issue remaining for trial was the nature and extent of harm allegedly caused to Rada as a result of Dimapasac’s actions., Rada sustained a fracture of the right leg’s femur, a compression fracture of the lumbar spine at L1, and multiple fractures in his right, dominant hand and wrist, including fractures of the radius and ulna. He was taken by ambulance to the University of California, Irvine Medical Center, in Orange, where he spent more than two weeks. During that time, Rada underwent surgery to his right femur, which included a rod insertion, and reconstructive surgery on his right wrist. He then followed up with two weeks of inpatient rehabilitation. Rada claimed he suffers from permanent limitations in movement and function in his right hand and wrist, including a 70 percent loss of grip strength. He also claimed he suffers limitations as to standing, walking and sitting. He alleged that as a result, he could no longer perform as a graphic designer. Rada sought recovery of past and future medical costs, past and future lost earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel did not present any evidence and called no witnesses to testify. Instead, the defense relied entirely upon cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses and experts to make their case on the nature and extent of Rada’s .