On Aug. 6, 2016, plaintiff Pearl Harrod, a dental assistant in her 40s, was in the women’s restroom at a bar in Norwalk when a sink came off the wall. As it fell to ground, the sink caused to Harrod’s right hand. Harrod sued the owner of the bar, Crestmark Entertainment, LLC. The lawsuit alleged that Crestmark was negligent in its maintenance of the premises. The lawsuit further alleged that Crestmark’s negligence created a dangerous condition that caused the accident. Harrod alleged that when she leaned on a sink it fell off the wall. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Crestmark had a plumber install the sink, but that the plumber did not secure the sink to the wall with the bolts that came with it. Harrod’s engineering expert testified about how the sink was not properly installed. Defense contended that Harrod misused the sink by sitting on it. Counsel further argued that any negligent installation was entirely the plumber’s fault, so Crestmark was not liable., When the sink fell, it sliced Harrod’s hand. Her friends then took Harrod to a hospital, where she was diagnosed with a deep laceration to her right, dominant hand. Harrod also sustained nerve damage to her right ring and pinkie fingers. As a result, Harrod underwent two internal nerve and artery repair surgeries. Harrod claimed that she still has problems with grip and sensation in her ring and pinky fingers as a result of the nerve damage. She also claimed that due to the loss of motion and function of her right hand, she is no longer able to do hand stitching or create trinkets, which she used to do before the accident. In addition, Harrod claimed that she was not able to perform her duties as a dental assistant and can no longer pursue that employment path. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic hand surgeon opined that Harrod could possibly benefit from a third surgery, but that it is unclear whether it would help Harrod further. Harrod sought recovery for her past and future loss of earnings, past and future pain and suffering, and past and future medical costs. Defense counsel disputed the amount of Harrod’s alleged future medical costs and the need for the third surgery. Counsel argued that the third surgery is unnecessary, as it would not help Harrod anymore. Defense counsel also disputed Harrod’s future-loss-of-earnings claim, noting that Harrod was able to transition into a managerial position at a different dentist’s office that paid her more.