On June 17, 2017, plaintiff Robert Kulig, a 24-year-old unemployed man, was walking in a marked crosswalk, crossing Coldwater Canyon Boulevard on the south side of the T-intersection with Erwin Street, in Los Angeles. He was struck by a vehicle operated by Manana Chiaberi, who was driving on northbound Coldwater Canyon Boulevard. Kulig sustained to his head, chest, left hand and left arm. Kulig sued Chiaberi; the registered owner of Chiaberi’s vehicle, Emil Chiaberi; and the owner, operator and controller of the roadway, the city of Los Angeles. Kulig alleged that Ms. Chiaberi was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Mr. Chiaberi was vicariously liable for Ms. Chiaberi’s actions. Kulig also alleged that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition of public property and that the city was negligent for its failure to repair and/or maintain the hazardous intersection. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Ms. Chiaberi failed to observe Kulig in the roadway ahead of her and failed to yield the right of way to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk. Counsel also contended that the intersection was well known to be hazardous to cross, even with a marked crosswalk, warning signs and striping, particularly in hours of darkness or semi-darkness and that the Los Angeles Department of Transportation had been alerted to the concerns of the intersection years before the crash. Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a traffic-control report, dated Oct. 6, 2015, that showed that the city had been aware that the crosswalk was hazardous for pedestrians. The report recommended the installation of pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons — which are rectangular shaped, high-intensity signal heads that flash in a wig-wag, rapid flickering pattern — at the intersection. The alternating signals provide a direct, ultra-bright concentration and wide-angle intensity. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the pattern and intensity are the same found in emergency-response vehicles, which provides optimal brightness and visibility for that style of traffic beacon. Counsel contended that the beacons’ main benefit is an increase in motorist compliance when it comes to yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks and other crossings. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the city should have mitigated the hazardous conditions at the crosswalk well before Kulig was struck. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the city claimed that the mandatory provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act required it to install access ramps (commonly referred to as “wheelchair ramps”) at the subject intersection before it could install the recommended flashing beacons. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the access ramps should have been installed decades ago and that the city ultimately installed the pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at the location after Kulig’s accident without constructing the access ramps. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the subsequent remedial measure would have been admissible at trial to discredit and refute the city’s contention that the recommended safety improvements simply could not be installed until the ramps were brought up to date. The city’s counsel asserted that it was immune from liability under Government Code § 830.4, which states that a condition is not dangerous if the purported property deficiency is the absence of traffic controls, signs or markings. Counsel also asserted that Kulig could not raise a triable issue of material fact that the intersection was in a dangerous condition in light of the undisputed facts about the intersection’s condition and the minimal incidence of prior pedestrian-vehicle collisions. The city’s counsel contended that the intersection collision history from the period of Jan. 1, 2007, through June 17, 2017, the date of the subject accident, showed that there were only three pedestrian-vehicle collisions at the intersection, including the accident involving Kulig. Counsel also contended that, based on data from the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s traffic volume study of Aug. 27, 2013, approximately 3,572,985 vehicles passed through the intersection in a northbound direction and that the frequency of a collision like the one involving Kulig was 0.05 collisions for every million vehicles or one similar accident for every 18.6 million vehicles. The city’s counsel also contended that there were no sight line obstructions and that on the day of the accident, the weather was clear, the conditions were dry, and the collision occurred during daylight. Counsel also noted that the striping on the street was new and conspicuous. The city’s counsel asserted that the intersection was not dangerous on the day and time of the accident. Counsel added that the decision to authorize and install the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at the intersection was not a product of a conclusion, due to the intersection being in a dangerous condition or based on the collision history of the intersection. Counsel contended that improved safety in public property is not, as a matter of law, evidence that the property was in a dangerous condition under Government Code §§ 835 and 830(a) and that even if plaintiff’s counsel could establish that a dangerous condition of public property existed, a public entity is not liable for damage caused by a dangerous condition if the act or omission that created the condition was reasonable, or if the action the entity took or failed to take to protect against the risk was reasonable (Government Code § 835.4)., Kulig sustained a severe traumatic brain injury; bilateral pulmonary contusions; a splenic laceration; a fracture/dislocation of the left, dominant hand; a fracture of the lower end (distal portion) of the humerus in his left, dominant arm; and fractures of the left anterior ribs numbers two through five, and left posterior ribs numbers three and four. He also suffered a partial amputation of the distal, fourth finger on his left, dominant hand. However, the loss of the tip of the ring finger was not a full traumatic amputation. Kulig was taken to a hospital, where, upon admission, he had a Glasgow Coma Scale of 1/2/1. He also suffered respiratory failure following the trauma and had to be placed on a ventilator. He later suffered from ventilator-associated MRSA pneumonia and had to be extubated on hospital day 11. Kulig claimed that he suffers contractures of the third through fifth digits on his left hand, as well as hand weakness, resulting in a loss of dexterity. He also claimed that he suffers peripheral vision loss and cognitive impairment as a result of his traumatic brain injury. Kulig claimed that he requires adaptive visual aids to compensate for his peripheral vision loss, school accommodations to accommodate for his traumatic brain injury and visual loss, and adaptive aids to compensate for his dominant hand weakness, contractures and loss of dexterity. He also claimed that he will require formal neuropsychological testing, extensive outpatient cognitive therapy, and individual psychotherapy and family counseling. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Kulig may be at a higher risk of developing neurodegenerative disease, such as Alzheimer’s disease, due to the severity of the traumatic brain injury. Kulig was not employed at the time of the incident and did not seek any past lost earnings. However, he sought recovery of future lost income as a result of his ongoing condition. He also sought recovery of approximately $500,000 in total past medical expenses (post-Howell) and $1.5 million to $6 million in future medical expenses based on his life care plan, before adjusting to present value. In addition, Kulig sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering.