At 12:44 p.m. on August 4, 2005, plaintiff Mercy Zamora, a San Francisco meter maid in her 40s, was driving a three-wheeled vehicle on Harrison Street, toward First Street, when her brakes failed while driving downhill. She was traveling at 22 mph and hit a van that was stopped at the red light on First Street. The force of the impact caused the bottom of the front of the vehicle to be crushed upward while the roof collapsed downward. The steering wheel became lodged into Zamora’s lower abdomen and she was trapped in the vehicle. Emergency workers used the Jaws of Life to free Zamora. She was sent to a hospital with multiple injuries.  Zamora sustained a fractured hand, a fractured knee, a lacerated liver, a lacerated vagina, a pelvic fracture, and a variety of other lacerations. She was in the hospital for six weeks after the accident, and spent another three months in a rehabilitation facility treating the injuries. Zamora sued the manufacturers and distributors of the vehicle, Textron Inc., Providence, R.I.; Ransomes America Corp., Augusta, Ga.; and Cushman Inc., Augusta, Ga.; to recover personal-injury damages. Zamora also filed a negligent manufacturing action against the companies that made and distributed the wheel cylinder on the vehicle, Affinia Group Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., and Brake Parts Inc., McHenry, Ill. Zamora's attorneys argued that Cushman was negligent for not equipping the vehicle with a roll cage, a shoulder harness, or a viable secondary brake, per the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Cushman should have equipped it with a dual­master cylinder brake system instead of the singe master cylinder system it had installed. Zamora's attorneys also argued that Affinia/BPI was liable for a manufacturing defect in the wheel cylinder it provided for the vehicle because its failure had caused the entire braking system to fail. They asserted that when the vehicle was inspected after the collision, the Affinia/BPI wheel cylinder was broken. They claimed that since there was a 300-­foot line of brake fluid tracing up the hill from the point of impact, it proved the wheel cylinder had broken and caused the entire brake line to fail. Counsel for Cushman contended that the company wasn’t required to install a dual braking system or a shoulder harness when it built the vehicle in 1992, because it was defined as a motorcycle and therefore satisfied the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The company also claimed that the vehicle was so old when it was in the collision that all of the parts had been replaced by the city, and the Cushman defendants couldn’t be held liable for the failure of parts it didn’t design, manufacture or distribute. Counsel for Affinia/BPI contended that there was no evidence that its wheel cylinder had failed before the collision. Counsel asserted that the damage to the wheel cylinder was consistent with a part that had been damaged in the collision. Counsel for Affinia/BPI argued that the master cylinder had failed and that was why there was a stream of brake fluid leading down to the area where the collision occurred. The defense contended that the city was liable, and it was added to the verdict form. The defense argued that the city’s negligent repair caused the master cylinder to fail and disable the entire brake line before the accident. Counsel referenced a June 2005 repair report that demonstrated that there had been complaints about the brakes, but the mechanic didn’t take any action other than changing a tire on the vehicle, despite its being out of use for about six weeks. Counsel argued that the city had also over­torqued the master cylinder, and that caused the master cylinder to weaken and eventually crack. Zamora's attorneys stated that two feet of Zamora’s intestine had to be removed, and she also sustained a mild brain injury, and developed PTSD and depression. They claimed $295,000 for Zamora’s past medical damages and sought an additional $150,000 for future medical damages because Zamora would require physical therapy once per month as well as ongoing emotional and psychological treatment. Zamora's attorneys also claimed that she was unable to work for the remainder of her life because her IQ was in the low 80s after the collision and she couldn’t perform the tasks of a meter maid. Zamora claimed it took her more than six months to return to walking and one year to walk without crutches. The parties stipulated to $150,000 in past lost earnings and Zamora’s counsel requested more than $1 million for future lost earnings. Noting the damage to Zamora’s ovary, and the limitations on Zamora’s ability to perform physical activities she had previously enjoyed such as running, her attorneys requested unspecified damages for past and future pain and suffering. Regarding the allegation that Zamora had suffered a brain injury in the accident, defense counsel argued that Zamora’s IQ had never been tested before the accident so there wasn’t any proof she had become cognitively impaired. The defense claimed that Zamora had performed 90 days of light duty work for the city since the accident and was able to continue working in a sedentary capacity despite some physical limitations. The defense also argued that Zamora wasn’t entitled to recover any future pain and suffering damages because she had been both walking and running for some time before the trial, as evidenced by her completion of a half-­marathon just two weeks before trial. The jury ultimately ruled a mixed verdict. They found the city of San Francisco to be 57.5% negligent, the Cushman company 37.5% negligent, and Zamora 5% negligent. Affinia/Brake Parts Inc. was found 0% negligent. They ultimately awarded Zamora $1,595,000.