On the morning of March 16, 2010, plaintiff Mynor Avalos, 38, drove his truck to All Recycling Center in Barstow to recycle scrap metal from his home improvement and remodeling business. He was accompanied by his neighbor, who was in the front, passenger seat. After arriving at the facility, Avalos got out of his truck and called over the forklift driver, Pedro Perez, to bring a recycling bin to the truck so that he could place scrap metal items into the bin. Perez then drove a 673-pound bin over to the back of the truck and stopped the forklift while the forks were still underneath the bin. Avalos then walked behind his truck to begin unloading the scrap metal from the flatbed. He claimed that while his back was turned to the forklift, the bin slid forward on the forks and pinned him against the truck. Avalos sued Perez and the owner of All Recycling Center, Alfredo Gonzales. He alleged that Perez was negligent in the operation of the forklift and that Gonzales was vicariously liable for his actions. Avalos claimed that Perez knew that the bin had a propensity to slip if it was left resting on the blades, but that Perez still failed to remove the forks from underneath the bin before placing it on the ground. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Gonzales testified that the facility was equipped with security cameras and that one of those security cameras actually captured the subject incident, but that the tape was not preserved. Thus, counsel contended that the defendants had an opportunity to preserve critical video surveillance evidence that would have portrayed how the incident occurred, but single-handedly failed to do so. Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently made a motion in limine to preclude the defendants from offering any defenses to the issues of liability and causation based on their willful destruction of the surveillance footage. The court granted the plaintiff’s counsel’s motion in part, and precluded the defense’s accident reconstruction expert from testifying at trial and limited the testimony of the defense’s biomechanical engineering expert to the singular issue of whether the mechanism of injury as described by Avalos could have caused a herniated disc at L4-5. The court also gave the jury instruction on willful suppression (spoliation) of evidence. However, Gonzales and Perez were still allowed to testify about how the alleged incident occurred, but could not explain what happened to the tape. (The defendants had claimed that the videotape “looped over” after thirty days and could not be retrieved.) Gonzales and Perez disputed whether or not the incident actually occurred, alleging that Avalos did not claim any injury at the scene. Specifically, the defendants claimed that the bin did not slip and did not pin Avalos against the back of his truck. Instead, they claimed that Avalos injured himself by pulling or lifting a heavy object from the back of his truck., Avalos did not seek medical treatment on the day of the incident, but claimed that he woke up the next morning in extreme pain and drove himself to the emergency room at Barstow Community Hospital. He subsequently underwent CT scans of his lumbar spine, which came back normal, and started physical therapy and chiropractic care. Avalos also received a series of three epidural injections and treated conservatively for nearly one year. He eventually underwent an MRI, which revealed a lumbar disc herniation at L4-5, and underwent an anterior lumbar discectomy, fusion and posterior decompression with bilateral nerve root foraminotomies on Dec. 9, 2011. Avalos had a successful recovery following the surgery and then went to physical therapy for a few more months. Despite his treatment, Avalos claimed he still experiences some discomfort in his lower back and could require some additional medical care. Thus, he claimed $394,137.65 in past medical costs, and asked the jury to award damages that included $477,000 for future medical costs, $1 million for past pain and suffering and $1.75 million for future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that upon examination, emergency room physicians found no visible sign of trauma to either Avalos’ back or his abdomen, which would have suffered trauma if he had been pinned by the bin to his truck. Counsel further argued that a herniated L4-5 disc is not the type of injury one would sustain if struck in the back and was, instead, a lifting injury. Defense counsel contended that Avalos lacked evidence of blunt force trauma, which would include bruising and possible fractures. It was also the defense’s position that Avalos injured himself when attempting to lift a stove or dishwasher from his truck.