On May 2, 2018, plaintiff Andy Martin, 33, a warehouse worker, and his cousin became involved in a verbal altercation with security guards at a bar at the Eastridge Mall, in San Jose. After Martin and his cousin had left the mall, security contacted 9-1-1, claiming that Martin threatened to shoot them and that Martin or his cousin displayed a knife. Martin and his cousin were running down a bicycle path when police officer Alexandre Vieira-Ribeiro drove his vehicle onto the path behind them. Martin was struck by Vieira-Ribeiro’s vehicle. Martin sustained to his pelvis, groin and a leg. Martin sued Vieira-Ribeiro and Vieira-Ribeiro’s employer, the city of San Jose. Martin alleged that Vieira-Ribeiro violated his civil and constitutional rights, including his right to be free from excessive force, and that the city was vicariously liable for Vieira-Ribeiro’s actions. Martin also alleged that Vieira-Ribeiro was negligent in his pursuit and in running him over. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Martin and his cousin were scared for their lives when Vieira-Ribeiro drove his vehicle onto the bicycle path and that Martin and his cousin ran from the vehicle to prevent being run over. Counsel also contended that Martin ran laterally to the left in an attempt to get out of the vehicle’s path, but that Vieira-Ribeiro turned his vehicle and followed Martin to the left. Counsel contended that when Martin went to the right in an attempt to evade the path of Vieira-Ribeiro’s vehicle again, Vieira-Ribeiro then swerved to strike Martin and ran him over. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after the officer ran Martin over, Vieira-Ribeiro backed the vehicle up, running over Martin again, before getting out and handcuffing Martin. Counsel argued that Vieira-Ribeiro used his vehicle with excessive and deadly force by running over Martin two times, despite Martin being unarmed, and that Vieira-Ribeiro was negligent in how he used his vehicle. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that video footage from another officer’s vehicle recorded Vieira-Ribeiro’s vehicle’s rise over Martin’s body. Counsel also noted that the video showed the brake lights came on, then the reverse lights, and then the brake lights again. Counsel argued that the video indicated that the vehicle ran over Martin once, stopped and then reversed to strike Martin a second time. Martin’s biomechanics expert opined that two wound paths were shown on Martin’s body and that the wounds could only happen by Martin being struck by two tires or, more likely, that Martin was struck by one tire twice as a result of it going over him once and then going back over him in reverse. Vieira-Ribeiro claimed that he responded to a dispatch report that two men had threatened security guards at the Eastridge Shopping Center and that a gun or knife was involved. He claimed that while en route, he saw two men fitting the description of the dispatch report run across an eight-lane expressway, climb over a fence in the median and start running on a dirt road along side of a creek. Vieira-Ribeiro claimed that he pursued the two men in his patrol vehicle at a speed of 2 to 5 mph while he had the vehicle’s lights and sirens on. He also claimed that he was concerned that Martin was armed and potentially dangerous and that he tried to pass Martin, after Martin attempted to run laterally, in order to block Martin’s escape. Vieira-Ribeiro claimed that his vehicle ultimately collided with Martin when he turned the vehicle to block Martin’s path. Defense counsel noted that Martin admitted at trial that he ran because there was an outstanding felony warrant for his arrest. Counsel also argued that the time-stamped video established that Vieira-Ribeiro was exiting the vehicle at the same time he was putting it into park, but that Vieira-Ribeiro inadvertently stopped the shifter in the reverse gear and took his foot off the brake for less than two seconds. Defense counsel contended that the video did not show any backward movement and that it only showed the vehicle was in reverse, without brake lights, for less than two seconds. Vieira-Ribeiro asserted that the vehicle did not move backward because he had engaged the emergency brake and that he did not intend to intentionally strike Martin, but that he only wanted to prevent Martin from escaping over the fence and flee. He further asserted that he felt threatened and feared for his life, as he believed Martin was armed before the encounter., Martin claimed he sustained three fractures to his pelvis, a soft tissue injury to his pelvic area, and a fracture of the pubic ramus with resultant pubic nerve damage. He also sustained a tibia facture at his ankle and contusions to both knees. Martin was arrested and taken to a hospital, where his injured ankle was placed in a cast. He ultimately underwent surgery on his ankle. He also underwent pelvic surgery to treat one of the pelvic fractures. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that there are early indicators of arthritis to Martin’s pelvis and that Martin walks with a cane now. Counsel also contended that Martin was in a bad situation with his nerve damage, as it could not be surgically treated and resulted in erectile dysfunction. Martin attempted to use Viagra, but it was not successful. Martin’s urology expert introduced a device that could be surgically implanted and would allow for an erection, though parts of Martin’s penis would need to be removed to allow for the implant. As such, the expert explained that Martin would be able to have an erection, but Martin would have no sensation. Martin’s expert economist calculated that Martin’s economic damages would total $2.5 million. Martin claimed that he suffers a permanent disability and that he suffers from emotional distress as a result of his ongoing condition. Martin sought recovery of $2.5 million in economic damages. He also sought recovery of noneconomic damages for his physical and emotional pain and suffering. In addition, Martin sought punitive damages against Vieira-Ribeiro, alleging that Vieira-Ribeiro intentionally drove over him two times. Defense counsel contended that Vieira-Ribeiro’s tire only ran over Martin’s ankle and that Martin may have suffered a pelvis injury when he was initially struck. Counsel also disputed that Martin suffered one of the alleged fractures to his pelvis. Instead, defense counsel argued that the pelvis injury was only a dislocation, and not a fracture that Martin did not need surgery on. However, the defense conceded that Martin needed the ankle surgery. The defense’s expert pathologist opined that Martin’s pelvic were inconsistent with the type of crush that would occur if the full weight of the vehicle had run over Martin’s body. The defense’s retained orthopedic surgery expert opined that Martin had recovered and that Martin would not need any future medical care. He added that Martin was mobile enough and that nothing medically could be further done for Martin. The expert also opined that Martin had no signs of arthritis in his pelvis, but that Martin did have early indicators of arthritis in his ankle. In addition, the expert orthopedic surgeon opined that if Martin was to be awarded future medical costs, it should only be for future surgery to have the ankle hardware removed and possibly for a new rubber tip on his cane due to regular wear and tear. The defense’s economic expert calculated that Martin’s future medical costs would only total $25,000.