On Feb. 7, 2010, Super Bowl Sunday, at approximately 3:30 p.m., plaintiff John Patrick, 35, a mortgage banker, was operating a 2002 Ford Escape, owned by plaintiff Joseph Matyasik, 37, a business owner, who was a front seat passenger. As they were traveling on southbound Interstate 15 in San Bernardino County, a 50-to-60-pound metal plate engraved with the words “Traffic Signal CalTrans” struck their vehicle, shattering its windshield. Patrick subsequently sustained to his back, knee and foot, while Matyasik sustained to his back, neck, shoulder, knee and hip. Patrick sued State of California, Department of Transportation, and the general contractor on a road project that had been going on for several months, Security Paving Co. Inc. Matyasik brought a separate action against Caltrans, but his claim was ultimately consolidated with Patrick’s case. Patrick and Matyasik claimed that the metal plate, which is the type that generally serves as electrical box covers, had fallen off a Caltrans vehicle. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Caltrans and Security Paving were negligent under Government Code §§§ 815.2, 815.6 and 835; and Vehicle Code §§ 815.2 and 17001. Counsel contended that since the metal plate was inscribed with “Traffic Signal Caltrans,” it must have been transported and ultimately dropped by Caltrans. Counsel also contended that the incident took place on a portion of the I-15 freeway that was under construction; that Patrick and Matyasik saw the metal plate fall out of a “white truck,” similar to those used by Caltrans; and that “hundreds” of Caltrans workers have 24-hour access to Caltrans’ vehicles. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that it was possible that someone from Caltrans was transporting the metal plate while he/she was off the clock (i.e., not being paid) and caused the incident. Counsel for Caltrans noted that nearly two months after the incident, Patrick and Matyasik stated for the first time that they saw the metal plate fall out of the truck. Counsel asserted that Patrick and Matyasik have no evidence that any Caltrans workers were working at or around the time of the incident, or at or around the location of the incident, on that Super Bowl Sunday and that both plaintiffs, though particularly Patrick, have changed their account of the incident multiple times. Caltrans’ counsel contended that the only Caltrans workers working within one hour of the incident on a portion of I-15 even remotely close to where the incident occurred, were three maintenance crew workers who were performing emergency pothole repairs until 2:30 p.m., while the subject incident occurred at approximately 3:30 p.m. Counsel further contended that Caltrans does not actually perform construction work on the projects and that, rather, Caltrans is only responsible for hiring the general contractor — in this case, Security Paving — and overseeing the project. In addition, counsel contended that Caltrans does not transport metal plates except in rare situations, i.e., a worker sees a metal plate lying on the side of the highway and he/she does the responsible thing by picking it up, and that no electrical work involving traffic signals was performed in connection with the project. Counsel for Security Paving maintained that a metal plate stamped with “Traffic Signal Caltrans” would not have been used by Security Paving or one of its subcontractors, including the electrical subcontractor, during the course of the project. Defense counsel contended that a California Highway Patrol officer responded to the scene of the accident not long after the incident was reported and did not see any Caltrans trucks or employees, or any construction work for that matter, taking place. Specifically, the responding CHP officer testified that he was at Foothill Boulevard when he was notified of the incident and that while he traveled to the location of the accident along southbound I-15, he did not see any Caltrans vehicles or workers. He also testified that upon his arrival at the scene of the incident, there were no other vehicles or witnesses in the area, including CalTrans vehicles, or workers performing road work, and that Patrick, himself, was unable to determine the origin of the debris and was unable to describe any other vehicles. He claimed that when he arrived, he saw that emergency medical technicians from the dispatched ambulance had already arrived at the scene and were attending to the plaintiffs. He also claimed that he noticed that one of the plaintiffs, Matyasik, was being attended to inside the ambulance and that the driver, Patrick, was standing by his vehicle. The officer alleged that as a result, he approached Patrick and began interviewing him about what had happened. He claimed that Patrick told him that a metal object came out of the air and struck and broke through his windshield, but that Patrick did not know where the metal plate came from and that he only saw the metal plate for a brief instant immediately before it came crashing through his windshield. The officer also claimed that Patrick did not mention seeing any construction workers or vehicles, including the white (Caltrans) truck he would later claim he witnessed the metal plate fell off of. Further, the officer testified that after he left the accident scene, he drove on the southbound and northbound lanes of I-15 to try to determine the possible source of the metal plate, but that this yielded nothing to suggest that the metal plate fell off of anything related to Caltrans. In addition, the responding CHP officer claimed that on March 30, 2010, 51 days post-incident, both Patrick and Matyasik submitted supplemental statements to the CHP. He claimed that in Patrick’s submission, he drastically changed his recollection of the event. The officer claimed that in the new statement, Patrick claimed that he now recalled seeing the metal plate “fall out of the CalTrans work truck while driving on the 15 southbound” and “strike another vehicle (a white truck) that was directly in front of his vehicle and behind the CalTrans work truck.” Defense counsel contended that Patrick changed his version of the incident yet again when he was deposed on May 6, 2011. Counsel contended that at the deposition, Patrick testified that a “big rig”, not a “white truck” (as he accounted in his supplemental statement), separated his vehicle from the CalTrans vehicle. The CHP officer further claimed that in Matyasik’s submitted statement to the CHP, Matyasik recalled seeing a “large metal plate fall out of a CalTrans truck” and then “strike a white truck on the roof, then propelled 25 ft. into the air (sic)” before striking their vehicle. The officer claimed that Matyasik further stated that all three vehicles — the CalTrans vehicle, the white truck and Matyasik’s vehicle — were traveling in the No. 5 lane, and not in the No. 1 lane as Patrick originally believed. In response to Patrick’s and Matyasik’s supplemental statements, the officer submitted a supplemental response that essentially refuted and pointed out the inconsistencies between each of the plaintiffs’ initial statements (at the scene of the incident) and the supplemental statements. Thus, he concluded that the plaintiffs’ claim that two other vehicles, including one from CalTrans, were involved in incident could not be substantiated due to the “lack of evidence.” In addition, the officer testified that he believed that each of the plaintiffs’ stories was inconsistent and wholly implausible., The metal plate went through the vehicle’s windshield and hit Patrick on the right thigh, right knee and right side of the chest. After he provided a statement to the responding CHP officer, Patrick presented to the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Emergency Department in Colton, where he was diagnosed with right back pain and a right thigh abrasion before being discharged home that same day. He claimed he suffered soft-tissue to his right knee and right heel, as well as middle-to-lower back pain, upper back pain, headaches and dizziness. Patrick subsequently treated his ongoing complaints of mainly lower back pain and right knee pain with several months of physical therapy through a variety of healthcare providers. Matyasik was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and also brought to the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Emergency Department, where he was diagnosed with a cervical strain. However, studies taken of the spine, chest and left knee were all interpreted as negative. Matyasik claimed he suffered cervical, thoracic and lumbar sprains/strains; multiple lacerations on the face and body; and neck, shoulder, back and hip pain. He also claimed emotional distress and anxiety as a result of the accident. Four days after the incident, Matyasik presented to a chiropractor for his increased knee and back pain. He underwent approximately nine months of physical therapy/chiropractic treatment. The chiropractor also recommended that Matyasik be seen by an orthopedist. Accordingly, Matyasik presented to his non-retained treating orthopedist and underwent an MRI of the left knee, which demonstrated a tear in Matyasik’s medial meniscus. On June 10, 2010, the physician recommended that Matyasik undergo partial arthroscopic medial meniscectomies of both knees. On that same day, Matyasik also underwent an MRI of the lumbar spine due to his ongoing back complaints and radiculopathy, and the physician interpreted the study as demonstrating a 4 or 5-millimeter disc bulge that was compressing on the nerve root at L5-S1. Each plaintiff claimed damages that included past/emergency and related medical expenses,future medical expenses, property damage, and general (emotional) damages. In addition, Patrick claimed loss of earnings damages and Matyasik, who previously owned Loan Options Now Inc., is presently unemployed. The defense’s orthopedic expert performed a medical examination of Patrick on June 22, 2012, and opined that Patrick sustained only minor soft-tissue to his chest, right middle and lower back/flank, and right thigh/knee. The expert also opined that Patrick would have only required six weeks of formal supervised physiotherapy and required no work restrictions post-incident. The expert further opined that Patrick’s right heel complaints are due to plantar fasciitis, which is not related to incident, and that no future care or treatment is indicated or necessary. The defense’s orthopedic expert also performed a medical examination of Matyasik on July 26, 2012. He testified that he found that Matyasik sustained only minor soft-tissue to the neck, middle and lower back, both shoulders, and both knees. The expert also opined that Matyasik would have only required six weeks of formal supervised physiotherapy and that an MRI scan taken on the day of the incident, Feb. 7, 2010, revealed no . The defense’s expert also testified that the MRI scans of the left knee on Feb. 7, 2010, and April 19, 2010, revealed only tendinosis and a contusion of the patellar tendon, and that there was no evidence of meniscal or ligamentous injury. Thus, the expert opined that no surgical intervention was indicated or appropriate. In addition, the orthopedic expert opined that Matyasik’s lower back pain was worked up over a course of four months post-incident, that the disc bulge/herniation at L5-S1 was not caused by the incident, and that no future care or treatment is indicated or necessary.