On March 17, 2010 at 9:15 am, plaintiff Carlos Jimenez, 40, a laborer for Granite Construction Co., was performing construction work on Highway 1 in Mendocino County, at the junction of Highways 1 and 128 in Elk, when his foot was run over. Granite Construction was paving one lane of Highway 1, located between a steep bank and a deep drop to the Pacific Ocean, which was protected by a guardrail. The paving was being done without a K-rail barrier along the center line, next to the live traffic lane. In addition, trucks brought asphalt to be dumped into the paving machine at the site, drove to an area to turn around and then drove back past the paving machine in order to leave to get another load. Due to the distance it had to be carried from the plant, the asphalt grew too cold, which caused chunks to form that had to be removed. Jimenez’s job was to remove these chunks from the paving machine, using a shovel on the outside of the paver next to the live traffic lane. During the course of his work, Jimenez crouched down to dig out a chunk of asphalt from the paver being used. As he stepped back to remove the chunk, an empty dump truck operated by Erick MacCallum was driving past the paver and ran over Jimenez’s left foot, crushing it. Jimenez sued MacCallum; MacCallum’s employer, V. Dolan Trucking Inc.; the owner of the roadway, the state of California, California Department of Transportation; and CalTrans employees that were involved in the project and present on the day the accident, Kelly Timmons and Chris Malik. CalTrans subsequently brought a third-party claim against Granite Construction, seeking indemnification. Jimenez claimed that before he bent down to remove the asphalt chunk from the paver, he checked for traffic and saw there was none. He alleged that before live traffic was released to pass the paver, workers were supposed to be notified, but there was no warning that MacCallum was going to drive past the paver. He further alleged that MacCallum was driving alone in the live lane, without any other vehicles. Jimenez also claimed that MacCallum was looking out of the driver’s window at the guard rail that was approximately one foot from his truck, and was not looking at the paving machine or the workers. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that MacCallum told the investigating California Highway Patrol officer that as he approached the construction site area, he saw a man crouched down with a shovel alongside the paver. MacCallum claimed that as he passed through the area, he continued to drive slowly within a foot of the guardrail, but lost sight of the crouching man, as well as lost any ability to make eye contact with him. According to plaintiff’s counsel, MacCallum claimed the next thing he knew, people were yelling at him to stop and someone was crying out in pain. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that at deposition, MacCallum admitted that he is required to make eye contact with highway workers before attempting to safely drive past them. However, counsel contended that MacCallum changed his story after the accident and at his deposition to state that he did have eye contact with Jimenez before he started to drive past the workers. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that MacCallum’s statement to the CHP officer made no mention of eye contact, but later filled out a statement to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigator on the date of the accident indicating that he had made eye contact with Jimenez. In any event, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the accident was caused by MacCallum continuing to drive by Jimenez, who was last seen crouched down with his back to the truck, next to the live traffic lane. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended the CalTrans representatives on the job were also responsible because they controlled the staging of the project, which was allegedly unsafe. Counsel further contended that the CalTrans workers could have stopped MacCallum’s truck when they saw him approaching the paver, when it was unsafe to pass. Counsel for MacCallum and V. Dolan Trucking argued that Jimenez was at fault for the accident because he had his back to approaching traffic and then stepped backward into the live traffic lane without looking for approaching vehicles. Counsel noted that the CHP investigating officer stated in his report that the cause of the accident was Jimenez’s unexpected movement into the path of the truck. Defense counsel contended that Granite Construction had set up an unsafe condition for the paving and shared responsibility with Jimenez for the accident. Counsel asserted that MacCallum was driving slowly and made eye contact with Jimenez before attempting to drive through the construction site and was, therefore, not the cause of the accident. Counsel for CalTrans, Timmons and Malik argued that there was absolutely no evidence that the CalTrans employees exercised any retained control of the construction site. Counsel also asserted that Granite Construction had assumed control of the construction project pursuant to the contract between CalTrans and Granite Construction. Thus, counsel argued that CalTrans could not be responsible for Jimenez’s because CalTrans had not retained control over the project, which affirmatively caused the accident., Jimenez suffered a complex crush/mangling injury to his left foot and ankle, and was subsequently airlifted to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, where he was admitted for 23 days. He underwent five surgeries over 12 days to avoid amputation of his left foot. However, the surgical attempts failed and Jimenez had to undergo a below-the-knee amputation of his left leg on March 31, 2010. Following the amputation, Jimenez had difficulty with the stump and the prosthesis he was fitted for. Consequently, he underwent surgery for excision of a neuroma in the stump on Jan. 3, 2011. Jimenez claimed that he continues to have phantom pain in the area of his amputated left leg, as well as back pain. He also claimed that suffers from depression as a result of his and is receiving ongoing treatment for his and depression. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Jimenez’s medical bills amounted to $601,347, but that it was all paid by worker’s compensation. Counsel also contended that Jimenez’s future medical care costs are presently valued at $1,224,975, but that workers’ compensation settled the lien and Jimenez will receive full future medical treatment with no credits to his employer. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Jimenez’s future wage and benefit loss is $1,213,373, reduced to present value.