On Oct. 17, 2013, plaintiff Patrick Galligan, 24, a Harley Davidson dealership employee, was riding his motorcycle in the right lane of westbound Orangethorpe Avenue, a three-lane avenue in Fullerton, when the vehicle in front of him slowed down to pull into a driveway. As a result, Galligan rode around the vehicle and struck the side of a vehicle operated by Diane Harper, who was attempting to turn left onto eastbound Orangethorpe Avenue. Galligan claimed of the pelvis and spleen. Galligan sued Harper and Harper’s employer, Orangethorpe United Methodist Church. Galligan alleged that Harper was negligent in the operation of her vehicle and that Orangethorpe United Methodist Church was liable for Harper’s actions while in the course and scope of her work. Galligan claimed that Harper violated his right-of-way and made an unsafe left turn, causing the collision. Galligan’s counsel also asserted that the “required vehicle” exception applied to the church since Harper frequently used her car for work and that, therefore, Harper was in the scope of her employment while commuting home from the church preschool, where she was the director. Defense counsel claimed that Galligan caused the crash by making an unreasonable and unsafe maneuver to pass the slowing vehicle., Galligan sustained a fractured pelvis and a spleen injury. He was subsequently placed in an ambulance and transported to University of California, Irvine Medical Center, in Orange, where he underwent a splenectomy to remove the spleen the next day, on Oct. 18, 2013. Galligan then underwent the surgical repair of his pelvis fracture with the placement of two in his pelvic area to hold it together on Oct. 21, 2013. Upon discharge from the hospital, he began in-patient rehabilitative care at St. Jude Medical Center, in Fullerton, and was ultimately released from rehabilitative care on Nov. 7, 2013. Four months later, just as Galligan was attempting to return to work, he sustained an internal bowel obstruction, which was caused by the formation of adhesions. As a result, he had to undergo surgery to remove the adhesions on March 7, 2014. Galligan claimed that he continues to suffer from residual issues and that he requires additional treatment. Thus, he sought recovery of past and future medical costs, and past and future loss of earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Galligan’s alleged need for future treatment and thus, disputed the amount of Galligan’s alleged future medical expenses and loss of earnings. Counsel also disputed Galligan’s alleged limitations as a result of the collision.