On Aug. 11, 2012, Aissa Chelbab, 50, an ironworker, was adjusting a shoring jack (a metal prop used to temporarily support a structure that is being worked on) because various pieces were not fitting together during the erection of a steel canopy at the Metro Station, located on Hill Street, between Temple and First Streets in Los Angeles. The steel canopy was designed and manufactured by George Jue Manufacturing Co., which was doing business as Paramount Metal & Supply Co., as part of the Metro Canopy Project, which involved the installation of five steel canopies over entrances to metro stations in Los Angeles. The general contractor, Griffith Co., subcontracted with Paramount to fabricate and erect all of the canopies. Paramount created a canopy erection plan for the site, which included drawings and instructions that indicated the order in which the canopy pieces were to be erected. It then subcontracted with Chelbab’s employer, United Riggers & Erectors, to erect the canopies. While a number of contractors were engaged in the erection of a steel canopy, which was supported by a shoring system, Chelbab was allegedly directed by Paramount to adjust a shoring jack because various pieces of the structure were not fitting together. However, while he was adjusting the shoring jack, the jack failed, causing the steel canopy to collapse. Chelbab sustained to his head and back. Chelbab sued the operator of Paramount Metal & Supply Co., George Jue Manufacturing Co.; Paramount Metal & Supply Inc.; Griffith Co.; McMaster-Carr Supply Co.; and Ed Anglemyer & Sons Inc., doing business as Anglemyer. Paramount Metal & Supply Inc. was dismissed from the case, as it was determined that George Jue Manufacturing Co. (doing business as Paramount Metal & Supply Co.) was the proper defendant. In addition, several other companies either settled out or were dismissed. Thus, the matter continued against only the operator of Paramount Metal & Supply Co., George Jue Manufacturing Co. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Paramount negligently designed and manufactured the shoring jack to have an articulating head, allowing it to easily rotate. Counsel contended that as a result, when Chelbab was directed by Paramount to adjust the shoring, the articulating head was sheared from the rest of the jack, causing the canopy’s collapse. Plaintiff’s counsel also asserted that Paramount negligently designed and manufactured the canopy, as a whole, because the canopy pieces were incorrect sizes and unable to fit together at the job site. Moreover, counsel contended that the principal of Paramount held himself out to be an engineer when he, in fact, was not and that the principal failed to notice the imminent collapse of the steel canopy due to the repeated failures of Paramount in the manufacture, design, and erection plan for the canopy. Paramount denied that it directed Chelbab to adjust the shoring jack, denied that its principal held himself out to be an engineer, and denied that it designed and manufactured the shoring system. Instead, Paramount’s counsel contended that Chelbab was being directed by his employer and was working in an unsafe location under the canopy when he struck the jack with the sledge hammer, causing the collapse. Counsel for Paramount asserted that the shoring system was adequate, as evidenced by the successful first installation, and that the collapse occurred because of the failure of United Riggers & Erectors, Chelbab’s employer, to follow the proper erection sequence and properly weld the pieces into place. Specifically, Paramount’s counsel contended that United Riggers & Erectors directed its employees to install all rafters before the strut braces, which caused the canopy to sag in such a way that caused the bolt holes to not align. Counsel further contended that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority and Griffith Co., who were supervising the installation, altered the location of a portion of the shoring system and failed to recognize that United Riggers & Erectors was erecting the canopy out of sequence. Paramount’s counsel asserted that if Chelbab’s employer, United Riggers & Erectors, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, or Griffith Co. recognized the risk and that if any of them had recognized the risk, the project would have immediately been halted and the accident would have been prevented. Thus, Paramount’s counsel asserted that the collapse resulted from Chelbab’s improper attempt to adjust the shoring system by hitting the screw jack assembly with a sledge hammer. Counsel further asserted that United Riggers & Erectors did not fabricate the steel canopy pursuant to Paramount’s erection plan and that the most notable mistake by United Riggers & Erectors was the premature installation of the horizontal rafters prior to the canopy fabrication, which overloaded the canopy and ultimately caused it to fail. Paramount’s counsel asserted that comparative fault should be apportioned to Chelbab, United Riggers & Erectors, Griffith Co., the general contractor, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (which was the premises owner that was never sued by any of the plaintiffs). Specifically, counsel contended that United Riggers & Erectors and its employees, including Chelbab, were at fault for the incident because they failed to follow the published construction sequence plan. Counsel contended that Paramount did not instruct anyone to adjust the shoring, but, rather, Chelbab asked if it could be adjusted, as he was trying to assess the situation and come up with a solution to the problem. Counsel noted that Chelbab testified that he attempted to adjust the shore by using a crescent wrench on the nut below the cradle, rather than using the adjustment handles, and contended that, accordingly, Chelbab bears a share of the liability. Paramount’s counsel further noted that United Riggers & Erectors failed to install four erection bolts on each erection clip, causing fewer bolts than intended to bear a significant weight. Counsel noted that while there was testimony as to the erection bolt holes not aligning, which might have prevented United Riggers & Erectors from using all of the erection bolts, a representative of Griffith Co. testified that United Riggers & Erectors was instructed to stop work and consult with its foreman if any problems arose. Paramount’s counsel further asserted that United Riggers & Erectors failed to erect and secure the long diagonal strut braces to the single column prior to adding additional rafter weight to the canopy structure. Counsel contended that the construction sequence called for four rafters to be installed to allow United Riggers & Erectors to achieve proper alignment of the ring beam sections before tack welding the ring sections to the columns. However, United Riggers & Erectors installed most, if not all, 16 rafters before either installing the braces or tack welding the columns to the ring sections. Counsel contended that when the incident occurred, United Riggers & Erectors was attempting to attach the strut braces to the ring beam sections, but was having trouble doing so because the ring beam sections were sagging under the weight of the rafters, which would not have occurred if the strut braces had been installed. In addition, Paramount’s counsel asserted that Griffith Co. and/or the MTA insisted that the shore installed under the ring beam be moved away from the midpoint of the ring beam section, causing the shore to be too short because the sidewalk sloped downhill at that location. Counsel contended that both the weight of the additional rafters and the change in location of the shoring assembly increased the load on the shore and the potential of instability of the temporarily shored canopy structure over what had been anticipated. Counsel further contended that United Riggers & Erectors was instructed to weld the cradle of each shore to the ring beam to prevent slippage, but that United Riggers & Erectors, instead, only used a chain and binder to hold the cradle to the bottom of the ring beam. Counsel contended that because of the round shape of the ring beam, it was extremely important to have a secure connection between the cradle and the ring beam, which could not be achieved with a chain, and that during the incident, both the cradle, and chain and binder slipped and came loose. Thus, Paramount’s counsel contended that Paramount suggested that United Riggers & Erectors raise the shore, but that the United Riggers & Erectors foreman instructed Chelbab to “hit it.” As a result, Chelbab attempted to adjust the shore by placing a crescent wrench on the nut (or by striking it with a sledgehammer), which cannot be adjusted, instead of using the adjustment handles. Counsel asserted that applying force to the nut, Chelbab likely caused the cradle to slip because it was not welded to the ring beam section, as it should have been, and that when the cradle slipped, the ring beam section was no longer supported by the shore, which set the collapse in motion. United Riggers & Erectors’ foreman testified that if the rafters were installed out of sequence, it was due to there not being enough “shake-out” space once the rafters were off-loaded from the delivery vehicle. However, according to the MTA, the amount of shake-out space was the responsibility of Griffith Co., as the MTA provided Griffith Co. with the work limits and as Griffith Co. provided MTA a bid to work within those limits., The canopy crushed Chelbab, pinning his head and body between the scaffolding and the steel. As a result of being struck on the back of the head by a piece of steel, Chelbab’s head was crushed, causing his skull to be fractured in several places. As a result, he suffered a subdural hematoma and an intracranial hemorrhage. Most notably, Chelbab suffered a traumatic brain injury with resulting cognitive impairment and psychological . He also sustained several serious , including a thoracic fracture and numerous other fractures throughout his body, a pneumothorax, and cranial nerve VI palsy, affecting the abducens nerve, which is responsible for causing contraction of the lateral rectus muscle to abduct (turn out) the eye. Accordingly, Chelbab suffers from the most severe form of diplopia (double vision in which two images appear side-by-side), which cannot be corrected or improved with surgery. Chelbab claimed that his head lead to seizures, nerve damage, and a permanently crossed eye. As a result, he required two head surgeries and a surgery on his thoracic spine, as well as two eye surgeries. According to the plaintiffs’ life care expert, Chelbab’s future medical expenses will total $8,453,613. Chelbab claimed to be disabled from all employment for the rest of his life. Thus, Chelbab sought recovery of $8,453,613 in future medical costs, $1,038,027.65 in future loss of earning capacity, and an unspecified amount of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. (His past medical costs and past loss of earnings were covered by workers’ compensation. Thus, Old Republic Insurance Co. was added to the case as an interested party for the purpose of recovering the workers’ compensation lien. Chelbab’s wife, Nidia Chelbab, presented a derivative claim, seeking recovery for her loss of consortium.