On Dec. 12, 2014, plaintiff Antonio Marin, 53, a building code inspector, was conducting an inspection of a construction project overseen by general contractor Moorefield Construction Inc. on the campus of California State University, in Fresno. As part of his inspection, Marin went inside the building that was under construction and began inspecting puddles of water that he suspected had been left by leaks in the roof. As he was taking photographs of the roof above the puddles, he was struck by a forklift driven by Rob Romo, an employee of subcontractor Westech Systems Inc. Marin sued Moorefield and Westech, alleging negligence. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that Romo was driving in reverse with no spotters or flaggers, and with the boom in a position that blocked his side-view mirror. Counsel produced a witness who estimated that Romo’s speed was 10 mph, which the plaintiff’s forklift and construction experts opined was unsafe. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that earlier in the day, Romo had been in a verbal altercation with another worker who was complaining that Romo was driving at an excessive speed. Marin claimed that he had not heard a backup beeper prior to the accident. The plaintiff’s construction experts testified that it is a common practice to disconnect backup beepers on forklifts because of the noise. In addition, the plaintiff’s forklift expert testified that it is relatively easy to disconnect the beeper on the model of forklift involved in the incident. Defense counsel maintained that Romo had driven in and out of the building using the same path several times prior to the collision and that Romo could not have reasonably foreseen anyone would cross that path. Thus, counsel asserted that Marin bore significant liability for his own . Defense counsel maintained that Marin allowed himself to become distracted by his attempt to locate the ceiling leaks and that Marin failed to maintain situational awareness, despite being an experienced building inspector who knew of the unavoidable dangers of construction sites. Thus, counsel asserted that Marin could have avoided the forklift, if Marin had been reasonably aware of his surroundings., Marin sustained degloving to his right calf and thigh with a gastrocnemius tear and a pes anserinus avulsion. He also sustained a left subtrochanteric femur fracture, bilateral superior and inferior pubic rami fractures with urethral disruption, and third and fourth proximal interphalangeal joint dislocations to his right, dominant hand. Marin was subsequently transported by ambulance to an emergency room and he remained hospitalized for four weeks. He ultimately underwent open reduction, and external and internal fixation of his femur and hand fractures. He also underwent surgical repair of his muscle tears and skin grafts to his calf and thigh. Marin claimed that due to his , he requires a cane to walk and is unable to close his right hand. He also claimed that he experiences considerable pain and fatigue, with a resulting difficulty in maintaining concentration. He alleged that as a result, he performs the activities of daily life slowly and with difficulty. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that Marin is totally disabled and unable to work. Marin claimed that his inability to walk without assistance prevents him from returning to the construction industry, while his inability to type with his right hand or sit for extended periods without pain precludes most sedentary professions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Marin will require further hand surgery. Thus, Marin sought recovery of $12.2 million in damages, including $574,267.47 in past medical expenses.