On Feb. 5, 2011, plaintiff William Cox, 52, a commercial driver, attempted to summon California Highway Patrol Officer Ron McMillan, who was performing routine traffic patrol along northbound Interstate 405, near Los Angeles Airport. Cox intended to complain about another motorist ahead of him, who Cox observed crossing a gore point while merging onto the I-405 freeway, which Cox believed was a traffic violation. As a result, Cox pulled up alongside McMillan’s patrol vehicle and angrily demanded whether McMillan had seen the other driver cross the gore point. McMillan subsequently initiated a traffic stop of Cox’s vehicle. After Cox complied and pulled his vehicle over onto the right shoulder, he exited his sport utility vehicle and walked toward McMillan’s vehicle. The patrol car’s video and audio recording device captured Cox, upon exiting his vehicle, shouting at McMillan about whether he had seen the actions of the other driver. McMillan then exited his patrol vehicle and twice instructed Cox to return to his vehicle, but Cox refused. As a result, McMillan requested that Cox turn around and place his hands on his head so that he could place Cox in handcuffs. Cox initially complied, but when McMillan attempted to handcuff him, Cox pulled away and spun around to face McMillan. McMillan subsequently drew his Taser and again instructed Cox to put his hands on his head. However, Cox did not comply, requested that McMillan “call someone else,” turned, and began to walk toward the rear of his vehicle. Based on Cox’s non-compliance and believing that Cox posed a threat to him, McMillan discharged his Taser. The darts struck Cox in the back, causing him to fall forward onto the freeway. Cox sued McMillan and the officer’s employers, the state of California and the California Highway Patrol. Cox alleged that McMillan’s actions constituted excessive force in violation of his civil rights and that the state and California Highway Patrol were liable for McMillan’s actions. The causes of action against the state were ultimately dismissed prior to trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to a bifurcated trial against McMillan and the state only. McMillan contended that he acted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the California Highway Patrol and that he discharged the Taser to protect himself, as he felt his safety was threatened by Cox. Specifically, McMillan claimed that he initially asked Cox to turn around and place his hands on his head for Cox’s safety, as well as his own, but that Cox refused to comply. He also claimed that once Cox turned and began to walk toward the rear of his vehicle, he lost view of Cox’s right hand. McMillan claimed that due to Cox’s behavior and the fact that he did not know whether Cox was armed, he decided to deploy the Taser., The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court. Cox was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was diagnosed with a wrist fracture and facial lacerations. Cox claimed that he also suffered a rotator cuff tear, cervical and lumbar , and nerve in his arms and left hand. Cox sought recovery of $1,045,949 in total economic damages, which included $240,622 for past loss of earnings, $671,750 for the present value of the loss of his future earning capacity, and $133,577 in future medical expenses.