On June 14, 2012, plaintiff Tomas Castro, 46, a handyman, was driving his Ford F150 truck in the farthest right lane of northbound National City Boulevard, in National City, San Diego, when he entered the intersection with 7th Street and broadsided a Honda sedan operated by 20-year-old Chatia Johnson. Johnson was initially stopped at a stop sign on West 7th Street. As she attempted to travel east, she crossed two southbound lanes and one northbound lane, but was broadsided by Castro’s truck as she was crossing the second northbound lane. Johnson’s vehicle was rendered a total loss with extensive damage to the right passenger side. Castro’s truck was also rendered a total loss with substantial damage to the front end of his truck. Johnson had no , but Castro claimed he injured his left knee and aggravated a pre-existing lower back injury. Castro sued Johnson and the owner of the Honda, Johnson’s mother, Lakucha Zimmerman. Castro alleged that Johnson was negligent in the operation of the Honda and that Zimmerman was vicariously liable for Johnson’s actions. The parties stipulated to payment of the limit of Zimmerman’s statutory liability (California Vehicle Code § 17151 (a)) by Zimmerman tendering her $15,000 insurance policy limit if Johnson were found negligent. However, prior to litigation, Johnson signed two separate declarations stating that she lived with her grandmother, making her a resident relative under the grandmother’s automobile liability policy, which had an additional per person limit of $100,000. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel questioned which policy Johnson was covered under, but later in depositions, Johnson and her grandmother denied that Johnson was a resident at her grandmother’s apartment for the period in question. Castro claimed that it was undisputed that he was going straight and was traveling under the speed limit by 10 miles. Thus, he claimed that he had the right-of-way and that Johnson was negligent for attempting to cross all four lanes. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction/human factors expert testified that there were passengers getting on and off a bus just ahead of Castro and a sport utility vehicle stopped to Castro’s right at the stop sign on East 7th Street. The expert also testified that Castro was not expecting Johnson to violate his right-of-way and to cross his path of travel from his left side. Thus, the expert opined that Castro was appropriately looking at the SUV to his right and at the bus with its exiting passengers in order to ensure he did not collide with any of them. The plaintiff’s expert testified that Johnson could have safely avoided the collision by turning right onto National City Boulevard and making a U-turn or a left turn. Alternatively, the expert testified that, had Johnson looked and seen Castro’s truck, Johnson could have crossed the two southbound lanes of National City Boulevard and safely stopped in the middle of the roadway, in the turn lane area, allowing northbound traffic, including Castro’s truck, to pass before she attempted to cross the last two lanes. Defense counsel contended that Castro had sufficient time and distance to safely stop and avoid the collision. Thus, counsel argued that Castro was wholly, or partly, at fault for the accident., Castro was taken from the scene by ambulance and brought to a hospital’s emergency room. He was later released, and he presented to his treating physician for treatment of pain to his left shoulder, left knee, and lower back. Although his left shoulder pain resolved, MRIs were taken of Castro’s knee and back, revealing a torn medial meniscus of the left knee and a lumbar disc bulges with neuroforaminal narrowing from L3-4 to L5-S1. Prior to the subject accident, on March 3, 2007, Castro was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein he injured his left knee, though there was no documented meniscal tear. Additionally, following the 2007 collision, an MRI diagnosed Castro with thoracic and lumbar disc bulges and foraminal stenosis at L5-S1. Castro subsequently underwent treatment, including physical therapy, for those prior . His last day of treatment was on Nov. 26, 2007, and Castro claimed his pain and symptoms in his knee and lower back had fully resolved, that he returned to work in late November 2007, and that he had no pain. He also claimed he did not receive any medical treatment for either his back or knee in over 4.5 years until after the subject collision in June 2012. Thus, Castro contended that the subject 2012 collision exacerbated, or “lit up,” his previous asymptomatic back condition, causing new radiating symptoms. Castro also contended that his torn meniscus was caused by the subject 2012 collision. The plaintiff’s treating neurologist testified that he performed a nerve conduction study on Castro and that the abnormal findings objectively validated Castro’s radicular symptoms. Castro claimed that he suffers headaches from striking the left side of his head during the 2012 accident and that he suffers ongoing back pain, resulting in pain, tingling and numbness that radiates down his left leg and into his foot. He alleged that he is a candidate for a lumbar decompression surgery. He also alleged that he is a candidate for an arthroscopic meniscectomy and partial chondroplasty of the left knee. Thus, Castro sought recovery of past and future medical costs, and recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that Castro’s alleged were not caused by the subject 2012 accident. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon could not believe that Castro’s back was asymptomatic after the March 2007 collision given the extent of the prior documented disc bulges with stenosis. The expert also opined that due to Castro’s labor-intensive profession, Castro likely exacerbated his pre-existing back and knee on the job prior to, or even after, the subject collision. Thus, the expert opined that Castro’s lumbar conditions, including neurological and radicular components, were pre-existing. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon further testified that the mechanics of a broadside accident, such as the subject 2012 collision, are unlikely to produce a meniscal tear. He testified that if Castro had torn his meniscus in the accident, he would have had immediate pain, swelling, and a disability, which would have been seen in the emergency room. The expert was also critical of the estimated future medical expenses posited by the plaintiff’s experts.