On May 16, 2008, plaintiff Eric Magallon, 31, a scale technician, was operating a test cart at Kings Waste & Recycling Authority in Hanford, in order to test the plant’s industrial truck scale, when the cart tipped onto its front end. A test cart is a motorized vehicle that is driven by an operator who stands on a platform at the rear of the vehicle. The cart also has a metal box, measuring approximately 4-feet by 4-feet wide and 2-feet deep, that is capable of holding 18 1,000-pound weights. The cart that Magallon was using on the date in question was only loaded with 15 1,000-pound weights, measuring approximately 15.5-inches by 15.5-inches and 19-inches tall. He claimed that nine weights were loaded on the bottom layer, with only a few inches of room on each side, and that six weights were loaded on a top layer near the front of the cart. To gain access to the scale, Magallon was required to drive the test cart up a metal ramp that had a slope of approximately 17 degrees. Magallon claimed since the hydraulic drive wheels were located under the front of the cart, his multiple attempts to drive forward up the ramp, with the drive wheels essentially pulling the cart up the ramp, were unsuccessful. As such, he reversed the cart and made several attempts to drive backward up the ramp, with the drive wheels essentially pushing the cart up the ramp. On his last attempt to back the test cart up the ramp, the test cart allegedly rolled down the ramp and came to an abrupt stop. Magallon claimed that when the cart came to an immediate stop, the weights continued in a forward motion and caused the cart to tip onto its front end. As a result, he was thrown approximately 10 feet into the air and landed on his right wrist and face. Magallon sued the manufacturer of the test cart, Paltec Truck Equipment, which was doing business as Tiffin Loader Crane. He alleged that the defendant was strictly liable for the defective design of the cart and for failing to warn of the possibility of tipping. Magallon claimed that the primary design defect of the cart was that the weights were not secured or locked into a stationary position, allowing them to shift when the cart came to an abrupt stop. He alleged that following the accident, his employer installed various mechanisms to prevent a further tip over, including, without limitation, an anti-tip bar at the front of the cart and methods to secure the weights into position. Magallon further claimed that the manufacturer failed to provide warnings or instructions with respect to the safe use of the cart. Defense counsel argued that Magallon was comparatively negligent in the operation of the cart, principally for using only 15 weights, instead of 18, which created an imbalance among the weights and contributed to the accident. Counsel also argued that Magallon was negligent for continuing to attempt to climb the ramp after multiple failures to do so. Further, Paltec’s counsel contended that Magallon’s employer failed to properly train its employees and failed to contact the manufacturer when attempting to use the cart in a manner other than originally intended. In addition, defense counsel contended that Magallon’s employer had purchased the cart secondhand, but failed to contact the manufacturer to obtain a copy of the owner’s/operator’s manual. However, plaintiff’s counsel countered that the owner’s/operator’s manual provided no warnings or instructions, and was simply a parts guide., Magallon was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and brought to an emergency room. He sustained a compound, comminuted fracture of his right wrist, for which he underwent multiple surgeries. He also knocked out his two front teeth, which had to be capped after root canals. Magallon also claimed a mild traumatic brain injury as a result of the blunt force trauma to his head during the accident. Despite the multiple surgeries to his right wrist, Magallon claimed that he still experiences pain. He also claimed he suffered from cognitive deficits as a result of his brain injury, which primarily included memory and concentration problems that would improve with continued therapy. Magallon alleged that he returned to work after the accident in three separate positions, but ultimately had to stop work entirely due to his . Thus, he sought recovery of $112,518 in damages for his past lost earnings and $834,147 for future lost earnings. He also claimed $87,651 in past medical expenses, which was paid by worker’s compensation, $59,555 in future medical costs for his neurocognitive deficits and dental treatment. In addition, Magallon sought recovery of unspecified damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that although Magallon may not be able to perform some of the heavy, repetitive work required of a scale technician, he was capable of performing other types of technician work that require less physically demanding effort. Counsel also contended that Magallon was earning more when he returned to work than he was at the time of the accident.