On Aug. 14, 2012, plaintiff Daniel Downard, 15, a 10th grade student at Hayward High School, in Hayward, was on campus with 25 other students for a summertime school leadership class. During the event, there was one teacher, Kaylin Laine, in charge of monitoring the activities of the students. Laine instructed the students to move materials across campus. She supplied them with hand carts and dollies, and forbade them from using their personal automobiles to transport the materials. Despite her admonition, one student loaded her car with supplies while Daniel sat on the car’s trunk. The student asked Daniel to get of the trunk and then drove off, claiming she did not know Daniel was still sitting on the trunk of her car. As a result, Daniel fell off the trunk, striking his face and right arm. Neither Laine nor anyone else from the school district was present during the incident. Daniel sued Laine and Laine’s employer, the Hayward Unified School District. Daniel alleged that the Laine was negligent in the supervision of the students per California Education Code § 44807. He also alleged that the school district was negligent in the hiring and training of Laine and that both defendants were generally negligent. Daniel claimed that Laine and the school district failed to provide adequate supervision of the students and that as a result, he was injured. Defense counsel contended that the students were provided with adequate supervision and that the accident occurred because Daniel intended to ride on the trunk of the car. Thus, counsel asserted that Daniel was negligent and at least partially liable for the incident., When falling off the trunk of the vehicle, Daniel’s head and face hit the pavement, causing damage to his right eye, specifically causing optic neuropathy. He also sustained a fracture of his right, non-dominant wrist. Laine subsequently took Daniel to the emergency room of Kaiser Permenante Medical Center, in Alameda, where Daniel’s arm was reset and splinted. However, Daniel did not receive any medical treatment for his eye. The vision in Daniel’s right eye went form 20/20 to 20/100. His physician claimed that Daniel’s eye injury is permanent and that there are no current medical treatments for optic neuropathy. As a result, Daniel claimed his vision impairment causes him to have difficulty reading, writing, working on a computer, and driving. He also claimed he has difficulty concentrating for long periods of time. Daniel claimed that due to this vision impairment, he will be denied the opportunity to serve in the military, and to work in law enforcement, for the fire department, as a paramedic, in construction, or in occupations involving operating a motor vehicle. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that, as such, Daniel’s prospective earnings for the balance of his life have been diminished as a result of the vision impairment. In addition, Daniel claimed he suffers emotional distress, as he has anxiety about the loss of his vision and his limitations on his future.