On March 20, 2011, at approximately 1 a.m., plaintiff Michael Thiry, 37, an automobile mechanic, was returning home from a San Jose Sharks game with a friend. It had been raining heavily in Sonoma County for about 48 hours and tides were high in San Pablo Bay, affecting the flow of water in San Antonio Creek (located slightly to the south of Thiry’s truck). At that time, Ibrahim Aldridge, a 21-year-old college student, was southbound on U.S. Highway 101, returning to Oakland from a friend’s house in Santa Rosa. Aldridge was not familiar with the weather patterns in Sonoma County and did not know about the flooding history near his location. As a result, while traveling at a speed estimated to be between 45 and 50 miles per hour, Aldridge drove into standing water, which he did not see, in the number one southbound lane of U.S. 101, at the intersection with San Antonio Road and hydroplaned. He subsequently lost control of his vehicle, crossed the center divider and slammed into Thiry’s truck. The collision propelled Thiry’s truck into an emergency call box to the east of the highway. Neither driver had been drinking, or was fatigued or otherwise impaired. Thiry was wearing his lap/shoulder harness seat belt and was also traveling at a speed of about 45 to 50 mph. However, Thiry sustained multiple fractures in the accident. Thiry sued Aldridge and the owner of the roadway, the state of California. Thiry alleged that Aldridge was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that the state failed to properly maintain the roadway, creating a dangerous condition of public property. Thiry counsel noted that the collision scene was dark, illuminated only by headlights of passing motorists, and that witnesses and the investigating officer described a river of water going across both the north- and southbound lanes at the location of the accident. Counsel also noted that there were median barrier guardrails north and south of the intersection of San Antonio Road and U.S. 101, but because there was a left turn pocket at the intersection for north- and southbound motorists, there was an approximate 1,100-foot opening at the intersection. Counsel further noted that the location of the crash is a geographic low point and that approximately one-fourth mile to the south of the intersection is San Antonio Creek, which runs from east to west across the highway, with two bridges crossing the creek on Highway 101, one for each direction of travel. Thiry counsel contended that documents produced in discovery showed that the location in question frequently flooded and that flooding was a product of heavy rainfall in the area, as high tides in San Pablo Bay influence the flow of water in San Antonio Creek, causing debris and silt from the creek to overflow onto the property adjacent to the highway, into inadequate and poorly maintained culverts at the intersection, and onto the highway. Counsel also contended that hydraulics files from the state of California Department of Transportation in the 1980s showed a history of concern about flooding at the subject location. Thiry’s counsel further contended that Caltrans’ then acting director recommended that the roadway be raised at the intersection to eliminate the flooding problem, but that this solution was not funded. Counsel asserted that as a result, the flooding continued one to six times each year. In addition, Thiry’s counsel contended that Caltrans began preparing project reports in the late 1990s for the Marin-Sonoma Narrows Project, an ongoing construction project that would widen U.S. 101 in the Marin-Sonoma corridor, and that a preliminary drainage report prepared in 2006 was critical of the maintenance of drainage facilities at and near the intersection and of the capacity of culverts at the intersection to handle foreseeable storms. Counsel asserted that there was significant flooding of the intersection six to 10 times during the 30-year period preceding the accident and that standing water of at least several inches was present in the southbound lanes at the intersection several times each year. Thiry’s counsel asserted that as a result, vehicles had hydroplaned off the roadway and into ditches, and had lost power due to driving through flooded areas, and that there had been numerous property-damage-only accidents as a result of the flooding. As such, Thiry’s counsel contended that the location in question was a dangerous condition of public property due to the condition of the roadway and adjacent properties, which led to the flooding, and that Caltrans had actual and constructive notice of the dangerous conditions, causing Caltrans to have an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect the public from the danger pursuant to Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. Counsel also contended that Caltrans had a duty to warn of the known dangerous conditions. In addition, counsel contended that the condition of San Antonio Creek and adjacent property constituted a dangerous condition of public property, which led to flooding onto the highway, exposing those using the public property to a substantial risk of harm. Aldridge claimed that he was traveling at a speed that should have been safe enough for the weather conditions and that he was wearing his glasses and not using his cell phone at the time of the accident. He also claimed that the condition of the southbound lanes was dangerous and that had warning signs been present, he would have slowed in response and the crash would have been avoided. Caltrans’ maintenance employees claimed that they were unaware of any alleged frequent flooding at the subject intersection and Caltrans’ traffic supervisor testified that had he been aware of the frequency of flooding, as allegedly reflected in the MSN reports, he would have ordered the placement of a “subject to flooding” sign in advance of the intersection. However, Caltrans claimed that its records supported that before this crash, there had only been one cross-median collision under wet weather conditions over a 15-year period. It also claimed that hundreds of vehicles traveled through the location in question while it was flooded during the late evening of March 19, 2011, and the early morning of March 20, 2011, and that none of those vehicles hydroplaned or became involved in collisions. Caltrans also claimed that the flooding that existed at the time of the collision had been present for less than an hour, which is an insufficient amount of time for its maintenance crews to have done anything about it, given the heavy storm conditions and the other areas that were more severely flooded that night and morning. Thus, Caltrans’ counsel asserted that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of Aldridge in traveling too fast for the conditions. Counsel also asserted that the location was not dangerous due to the absence of similar accidents and that if the condition was dangerous, it was due to the conduct of the adjacent property owners., Thiry suffered comminuted, open fractures of both ankles; comminuted fractures of both heels; displaced fractures of the lower leg and foot; a fracture of the left femur; a fracture of the left hip; and a compression fracture at L2. He subsequently underwent three open surgeries in the first three weeks after the crash, was hospitalized for the first 30 days after the accident, and had a morphine pump implanted. Thiry claimed he continues to suffer from chronic pain. He also claimed he suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. He alleged that as a result, he is disabled from working on his feet, causing him to be unable to return to work as an auto mechanic, a job he loved. The plaintiff’s treating physicians and experts agreed that Thiry will suffer some degree of lower extremity pain for the rest of his life. Thus, Thiry sought recovery of $520,000 in past medical costs, approximately $1 million in future medical costs, approximately $350,000 in past lost earnings; and $2.15 million in future loss of earning capacity. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. In addition, his wife, Karen Thiry, sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium. Defense counsel asserted that Mr. Thiry’s future earnings loss would be substantially less, assuming Mr. Thiry could work full time.