At around 9:30 p.m. on Dec. 31, 2011, plaintiff Gary Lawman, 52, a San Jose resident that was originally from the United Kingdom, was arrested in downtown San Francisco after San Francisco police officers were called to the lobby of a Four Seasons residence. The officers believed Lawman was intoxicated. As a result, Lawman was placed in the sobering cell at the county jail. Four hours later, at 1:30 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2012, Lawman was released, per protocol. Later, at around 10:55 p.m. on Jan. 1, 2012, Lawman was seen shirtless and wandering in lanes of traffic on Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway, also known as Interstate 80, near the western span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, when he was struck by a truck and suffered . Lawman sued Police Officers Phillip Gordon, Glen Minioza, Brian Kneuker, Carlos Gutierrez, and Craig Tom; Sheriff’s Deputies Patrick Pene, Julio Palencia, Andrew Brown, Paul Rapicavoli, and Matthew O’Shea; former Police Chiefs Michael Hennessey and Greg Suhr; the officers’ employer, the city and county of San Francisco; and nurses Roel Lapitan and Frank Lakto. Lawman alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence, false imprisonment, failure to provide medical care, and violations of his civil rights. Summary judgment was granted as to all claims and defendants, except for the claims of false arrest/false imprisonment against Gordon and Minioza; municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) against the city and county of San Francisco; and false arrest under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the city and county of San Francisco. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Lawman had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder later in life and that Lawman’s behavior, which ultimately resulted in his arrest in downtown San Francisco on New Year’s Eve, was due to a mental health emergency, and not alcohol. Thus, counsel argued that Lawman was falsely arrested for public intoxication, which was wrong, as was the officer’s assessment of Lawman being drunk. Defense counsel argued that Lawman exhibited objective signs of intoxication and that the officers had probable cause to arrest him. Counsel further argued that the officers did not know, and had no reason to know, that Lawman was disabled. In addition, defense counsel contended that a nurse evaluated Lawman before the county jail accepted him into custody and did not note any signs of a mental health emergency., Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Lawman sustained a wide array of physical when he struck by the truck. As a result, Lawman was taken to a hospital, where he was in a long coma. However, those damages claims were tied to causes of action on which the defendants were granted summary judgment. As a result, at trial, Lawman only sought recovery of damages for his emotional pain and suffering as a result of his false arrest and imprisonment.