At approximately 7:45 a.m. on Feb. 23, 2010, plaintiff Su Mah, 52, a seamstress, exited a city bus in the vicinity of Mission Street in San Francisco. As she attempted to cross Mission Street, outside of a crosswalk, between 5th and 6th Streets, she was struck by a vehicle operated by Jordan Assaf, who was traveling west on Mission Street. Mah was thrown 60 feet and landed on her head, rendering her unconscious. She sustained multiple head , as well as to her right arm and leg. Mah sued the driver, Jordan Assaf, and the owner of the vehicle, Jordan’s father, Ben Assaf. Mah alleged that Jordan Assaf was negligent in the operation of the vehicle and that Ben Assaf was vicariously liable for his son’s actions. Mah’s counsel obtained surveillance video from the nearby San Francisco Chronicle Building, which showed Mah exiting the bus and starting to cross Mission Street. However, the video did not show the collision, but Mah’s counsel contended that it showed Jordan Assaf barreling down Mission Street. The video also established that Assaf was in the number one lane, while the defendant testified in his deposition that he was in the number two lane. Mah’s counsel argued that the impact, involving the left front corner of the vehicle and side-view mirror, was forceful enough to throw Mah 60 feet, which proved Assaf was speeding. Counsel noted that rather than stopping his vehicle, Assaf went around the block and returned to the scene approximately two to five minutes later, when police had already arrived. Defense counsel’s initial position was that Jordan Assaf was not speeding and that Mah was jaywalking outside of a marked crosswalk. Thus, counsel contended that liability was at least 75/25 percent in favor of the defendants. However, after defense counsel viewed the surveillance video, both the plaintiffs’ and defense’s liability experts agreed that Assaf was traveling at a speed of at least 35 mph, and possibly as fast as 42 to 45 mph per the plaintiffs’ expert. In addition, the defense’s liability expert confirmed that Mah was visible for at least 4.5 seconds prior to impact., Mah was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and brought to an emergency room. She sustained a closed head injury from landing on her head, including a left temporal contusion and subarachnoid hemorrhage, as well as a right temporal bone fracture without displacement, blood in the middle ear with decreased hearing, and multiple contusions and hematomas. She also suffered a closed fracture of the right dominant humerus, a closed comminuted fracture to her right tibia, a fracture to her right fibula, and a syndesmosis disruption of her right ankle. While at the hospital, Mah underwent surgical repair of the right humerus fracture, including an open reduction and internal fixation. She also had surgical repairs of the right tibia and fibula that consisted of open reduction and internal fixation. During the surgical repair of the tibia and fibula, there was also a cortical screw repair of the syndesmosis disruption. Mah remained inpatient at the hospital until March 2, 2010, when she was transferred to a rehabilitation facility until March 19, 2010. Mah was non-weight-bearing on her right, lower extremity until approximately late-May 2010 and thereafter, she began partial weight-bearing. However, the cortical screw placed in her right ankle fractured as a result of usage of the right lower extremity, but remains in place in its broken condition. Mah was also diagnosed with traumatic brain damage by her neuropsychologist. The doctor opined that Mah has lost approximately nine IQ points as a result of the brain injury. Mah claimed that she still walks with a limp and requires usage of a cane for ambulation in certain instances. She also claimed that her right hand is weaker due to the injury to the right, upper extremity, which continues to provide symptomatology to her, as does her right lower extremity. Thus, she alleged that she still experiences weakness in these extremities and some episodic complaints of pains. In addition, Mah claimed that she still experiences problems with speed of information processing and has impairment of construction, that her working memory is mildly impaired to the extent of her ability to hold new instructions, and that her vocabulary is similarly mildly impaired. She alleged that her head injury has resulted in a moderate cognitive impairment, which created a higher risk for Alzheimer’s in the ensuing eight- to 10-year period. Thus, Mah claimed approximately $300,000 in damages for past medical costs, $32,000 in damages for past lost earnings, $130,000 to $150,000 in damages for future lost earnings, and unspecified damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Her husband, Stephen Huang, sought recovery of damages for his loss of consortium. Defense counsel did not dispute Mah’s medical bills or past lost earnings, but argued that her orthopedic had healed and that she should have been able to return to work approximately nine months post-accident. Both the plaintiffs’ and defense’s medical experts agreed that Mah suffered a mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury.