On Oct. 18, 2015, plaintiff Jennifer Barrett, 32, a professional in the banking and finance industry, was participating in a high-speed motorcycle ride at Thunderhill Raceway Park, in Willows. Barrett was an experienced motorcyclist who had previously ridden at Thunderhill Raceway during high-performance motorcycle track days, which were organized by Keigwins@TheTrack Inc. On this day, Barrett was participating in a high-speed, “two-up” ride with Cory Call, a professional motorcycle racer who provided individualized instruction and coaching for Keigwins. During the third lap, Barrett and Call slid into the grassy outfield at high speed and crashed. A second motorcycle, which was operated by Kevin Norton, then crashed in the same area and slammed into them. Call tried to shield Barrett from Norton’s motorcycle, as Barrett remained on her hands and knees while trying to catch her breath, but Barrett sustained of her head, her arms and a foot. Barrett sued Call; Norton; Keigwins@TheTrack; Keigwins’ instructor and vice president of operations, Jesse Carter; Carter’s wife, the chief financial officer and events coordinator, Leah Carter; and the subsequent purchaser and operator of the track, Szymon Dziadzia. Norton’s counsel moved for summary judgment based on a waiver and release. The motion was granted, and Norton was dismissed from the case. Barrett also voluntarily dismissed the case against Dziadzia and the Carters. In addition, claims of ordinary negligence were barred based on a waiver and release signed by Barrett. As a result, the matter only continued against Call and Keigwins on the claim of gross negligence. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Call, who wore the nickname “Booty Call” on his leathers, was a “hooligan” who tried to impress women with dangerous, two-up thrill rides and that Keigwins condoned Call’s conduct for years. Counsel also contended that the subject two-up ride was “crazy fast” with deep lean angles, knee dragging, wheelies and unsafe passing, which was not requested or expected. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that the crash was due to Call’s recklessness and disregard of impending rain. Defense counsel argued that Call was a seasoned, talented rider and that the two-up ride was instructional. Counsel contended that Call offered high speed, two-up rides to help participants improve their riding skills by providing them an instructional, controlled experience with deep lean angles and knee dragging to demonstrate the correct lines, throttle and brake control. Defense counsel argued that Barrett embellished events and vilified Call to work around the waiver and release by claiming gross negligence. Counsel also argued that the crash was caused by an unexpected slick spot on the track and not by excessive speed or lack of care. Counsel further argued that Norton and the race track were comparatively at fault for the accident., First responders found Barrett unconscious with a head injury and sonorous breathing. Barrett claimed that she was unconscious for 30 minutes. Call also sustained multiple serious fractures. Both Barrett and Call were airlifted to a level one trauma center. Barrett was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. She was also diagnosed with a closed, displaced, traumatic fracture of the right and left humerus with a left radial nerve injury, and a fracture of the fifth metatarsal on the right foot. Barrett was hospitalized for one week, during which time she underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of the left and right humerus bones. Her right foot was casted. Barrett was then transferred to a rehabilitation center for two weeks, during which she underwent physical therapy and cognitive treatment for her memory, speech and language disorders as a result of the brain injury. She continued undergoing therapy for an additional eight months as an outpatient, and she did not return to full-time work until 14 months after the accident. Barrett claimed that she suffered progressive cognitive deterioration as a result of her brain injury. She also claimed that she suffers residual orthopedic limitations, which permanently reduce her quality of life. Barrett claimed that she was a high wage earner and that she will eventually suffer a 40 to 60 percent loss of earning capacity as a result of her limitations and deteriorating condition. Barrett sought recovery of $2,480,160 in past and future loss of earnings; $364,000 in past and future medical expenses; and $3 million to $5 million in damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Barrett’s claims regarding her alleged unconsciousness and contended that Barrett was only unconscious for three to four minutes. Counsel also argued that Barrett overstated the extent and effect of her , and presented supporting social media evidence. Counsel further argued that the degree of Barrett’s TBI was grossly exaggerated.