On Oct. 26, 2011, at 5:44 a.m., plaintiff Teddy Patron, 29, a laborer, was driving a 1993 Toyota Corolla on southbound Maritime Street, in Oakland, when he entered the intersection with 7th Street and was struck by a 1998 Freightliner tractor operated by Milan Marinkovic, who was westbound on 7th Street. Marinkovic’s truck impacted Patron’s driver’s side door and pushed the car through the intersection. Patron subsequently sustained to his left shoulder and left knee. He also sustained a head injury, causing him to lose consciousness. Thus, he has no memory of the accident. Patron sued Marinkovic, individually and doing business as Shampy Trucking, and an independent contractor “subhauler,” California Sierra Express Inc. Patron alleged that Marinkovic was negligent in the operation of the tractor-trailer and that California Sierra Express was vicariously liable for Marinkovic’s actions since he was operating the truck as an agent of the subhauler. Patron claimed prior to entering the intersection, he was stopped next to two semi tractors, which were to the left of him. He alleged that when the traffic signal turned green he and the two semi tractors next to him started into the intersection, but that the drivers of the semi-trucks saw Marinkovic coming from their left and were able to stop. However, Patron claimed that since he was in a smaller vehicle, his vision to the left was blocked by the two trucks, causing him to continue into to intersection. He further claimed that Marinkovic caused the collision by negligently entering the intersection against a red light at a fast speed of 45 to 50 mph. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the driver of the semi-truck immediately to Patron’s left told the investigating police officer that Marinkovic’s vehicle entered the intersection against a red light. Counsel also noted that the investigating police officer found Marinkovic at fault for violating Vehicle Code § 21453(a), for failure to stop for a red traffic signal at an intersection. The plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert reconstructed the accident based on independent witness testimonies about the speed and location of Marinkovic’s vehicle, and opined Marinkovic increased his speed as he approached the intersection and could not have possibly entered the intersection on a green or yellow traffic signal. The expert further opined that the traffic signal had been red in Marinkovic’s direction of travel for several seconds before he entered the intersection and that the 69,450-pound tractor-trailer struck Patron’s vehicle at the driver’s door, causing a two foot intrusion into the driver’s side. Marinkovic claimed that he entered the intersection on the green light at 25 to 30 mph and that the light turned to yellow after he was about 10 feet into the intersection. He also claimed that he did not hit Patron’s vehicle, but that his tractor was struck on the right, rear wheels, behind the gas tank. Defense counsel contended that Patron started into the intersection without being able to see if any traffic was coming from his left, causing Patron to enter the intersection blindly. Counsel also contended that Patron failed to yield the right of way to Marinkovic’s tractor-trailer, which was first into the intersection., After the collision, Patron was taken to Highland Hospital in Oakland. He sustained a left, non-dominant shoulder separation and a comminuted left tibial plateau fracture, resulting in large lipohemarthrosis. He also sustained a left temporal fracture of his skull with a 3-millimeter depression and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurosurgery was subsequently consulted for the skull fracture, but surgery was not recommended and the laceration to the skull was stapled. Surgery on the knee was also not recommended at that time. However, Patron returned to Highland Hospital 13 days later and new radiology films showed a displaced fracture at the tibial plateau. As a result, surgery was scheduled for the next day, during which open reduction and internal fixation was performed using medial and lateral plates and screws. Patron had originally injured his left hip in a 2005 accident, after which he required open reduction and internal fixation. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the October 2011 accident in question caused a screw from the previous hip surgery to become lodged in the joint and was the source of Patron’s pain. As a result, on April 2, 2012, Patron was admitted to the hospital for hardware removal from his left hip. Counsel contended that the plaintiff’s treating orthopedist noted that the subject accident “flared up [Patron’s] left hip condition and [that Patron] has had persistent left hip pain.” On Dec. 3, 2012, at the age of 30, Patron was admitted to Highland Hospital and underwent a total hip replacement. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that it was unlikely that Patron would have needed a future hip replacement because of the 2005 accident and that Patron, at the time of the subject accident, had no limitation in his daily life or problems with his left hip. Patron claimed that he was working at the time of the accident as a temporary laborer, but that he had been told that he would become a full-time forklift operator. Thus, his income loss with mitigation was projected to be $607,709, reduced to present value. In addition, the plaintiff’s life care planning expert calculated that the present discount value of Patron’s future medical costs was $868,906. Thus, Patron sought recovery of $1,646,614 in total economic damages, including $170,000 in past medical costs, $868,906 in future medical costs, $50,327 in past wage loss and $557,381 in future wage loss. Defense counsel contended that the 2005 severe hip injury caused premature destruction of the articular cartilage with osteophyte formation, indicating the cause of Patron’s pain was the prior accident. Counsel also contended that the Highland Hospital’s lien of $166,275 consisted of $77,778 attributable to the hip replacement, which was not caused by the subject accident. Thus, defense counsel asserted that Patron’s past medical bills totaled $88,496 and that Patron’s life care plan was very inflated, requiring drastic reduction for future medical expenses. (The Highland Hospital lien of $166,275 was ultimately reduced to $53,000, through negotiations.) Defense counsel also challenged Patron’s alleged income loss, contending that Patron did not have a prior, documented wage loss as a laborer. Counsel further contended that no future wage loss was caused by the subject accident.