On Dec. 1, 2006, plaintiff Estel Walker, 38, an actor/comedian, was driving home on 28th Street, which was Fraternity Row on the University of Southern California campus. He claimed that Daniel Van Hill rode by on his bicycle and broke his driver side mirror as a prank, which prompted him to follow Van Hill back to his fraternity house. Walker claimed that when he confronted Van Hill in the rear parking lot of the Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity house, he was attacked by Van Hill, Sean McLaughlin and three unidentified fraternity brothers. Walker sued Van Hill, McLaughlin and the Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity. He alleged that the actions of Van Hill and McLaughlin constituted battery and negligence, and that TKE was liable under the theory of Respondeat Superior. Walker claimed that when he confronted Van Hill, he was attacked, unprovoked, by five TKE brothers, who beat him to the ground and then punched and kicked him in the head. He claimed that TKE was vicariously liable for Van Hill and McLaughlin’s actions, since they were members of the fraternity and acting in the course and scope of the agency, and because the incident was on fraternity property. Van Hill and McLaughlin claimed that Walker was the aggressor and attacked Van Hill first. Thus, they claimed that they were just acting in self-defense. The national TKE fraternity, the local chapter and the fraternity-controlled owner of the fraternity house denied liability. They claimed that the fraternity members were not agents, were not acting within the course and scope of any such agency, and that they neither approved nor ratified the tortuous conduct., Walker was taken to an emergency room by a friend. He sustained to his head, face and body from the attack. He claimed a sprained left elbow and needed sutures for his left middle finger, which he claimed Van Hill bit, breaking the skin. Walker also claimed a black eye and other facial bruises, and underwent a CAT scan, which was negative for a brain injury. Walker alleged that he suffers effects from post-concussion syndrome and subsequent cognitive disorders, such as issues with concentration, comprehension and reading. He further alleged that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and associated depression and anxiety. He subsequently has been treating with intermittent psychiatric and psychological counseling. In addition, Walker claimed that as a result of his deteriorating psychological condition, his wife divorced him and he has restricted contact with his four-year-old daughter. Although Walker was left with some minor residual scars, he acknowledged there was no permanency to his physical . He missed a month of work while recovering and claimed that due to his deteriorating condition, he can no longer keep even a menial job and is currently living in a friend’s basement. His expert neuropsychiatrist claimed that Walker’s condition was permanent and stationary. Walker claimed that he earned $2,800 a month prior to the incident and sought recovery for five years of damages for past lost earnings and future lost earnings for the duration of his life. He also sought recovery of $5,000 a month for past and future pain-and-suffering damages. Defense counsel contended that the from the incident were not severe, and argued that Walker’s complaints were rooted in pre-existing conditions of PTSD and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The defense’s expert neuropsychiatrist opined that there was no brain injury and that with treatment and medication, Walker could put the incident behind him.