Late at night on Dec. 27, 2011, plaintiff Larry Walker, a retired man in his 50s, was riding a bicycle on the sidewalk along Lincoln Avenue, in a residential area in Pasadena, when his front tire struck an offset in the sidewalk. Walker was subsequently ejected from the bike, and he claimed to his left shoulder and right hand. Walker sued the believed maintainers of the sidewalk, the city of Pasadena, Carol Lofton, and Stelonilson Goncalves and Wande Goncalves. Walker alleged that the city and one of the properly owners, as the offset was on the borderline between the front yards of the Goncalves and Lofton houses, were negligent in their failure to properly maintain the sidewalk, creating a dangerous condition of public property. The homeowners all settled out of the case, and the matter continued against the city only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that it is legal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk in Pasadena and that the location of the accident was fairly well lit. Counsel also contended that the offset, at its highest point, was 3 to 4 inches high, depending on where the exact measurement was made, and was pyramid shaped. Counsel argued that the offset was difficult to see while on the sidewalk until one was very close to it, but that the offset was very visible if one was standing on the curb or in the street. Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that the city knew the offset was there, as the city had made repairs in the area and the offset had been there for so long that the city should have discovered it. The plaintiff’s expert civil engineer, who is also an arborist, testified about the construction of the sidewalk and the causes of the offset. She also noted that at some point before the accident, although it was unclear as to exactly when, the city patched the offset with asphalt. Thus, the expert opined that based on the condition of the concrete, the offset was likely there for a discoverable period of time. Defense counsel argued that the city did not have notice of the condition and could, therefore, not fix it. Counsel also argued that the offset was relatively minor and that the city was not responsible for minor defects. In addition, defense counsel argued that Walker was comparatively negligent for the accident, as Walker was not paying attention to where he was going and admitted to not having a head light on his bicycle, as required by the California Vehicle Code., Walker sustained multiple fractures of the left shoulder, and a fracture of the fourth metacarpal of his right, dominant hand. He also sustained soft tissue to his legs, arms, and torso, as well as scrapes and bruises. Walker did not lose consciousness at the scene, and he was able to get back up and walk his bicycle back to his house, which was about two miles away. He then drove himself to an emergency room later that night and underwent diagnostic studies, including X-rays and MRIs of his right hand and left shoulder. Walter then began follow-up medical care within a few days of the accident. One week after the accident, Walker presented to a medical facility and underwent physical therapy for his shoulder. However, he ultimately underwent surgery on his left shoulder, during which hardware was placed, one to two months after the accident and then underwent another surgery to have the hardware removed seven months later. After both surgeries, Walker underwent several weeks of physical therapy. Walker claimed that as a result of his shoulder , he cannot sleep on his left side and has permanently lost some strength and range of motion in his left shoulder and arm. He also claimed that his right finger is permanently bent slightly. Walker alleged that he has been unable to do any significant yardwork, domestic cleaning, or working out at the gym since the accident. He also alleged that surgery was recommended for his hand, but that he was told that the outcome could be 50/50. Walker claimed that as a result, he elected not to have the hand surgery. The plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgery expert testified about the nature and extent of Walker’s , the surgeries he performed, and what Walker’s condition would be in the future. Specifically, the treating expert opined that Walker would continue to have problems with his shoulder and hand, but that the extent could not be predicted. He further testified that it could not be predicted if Walker would need future surgery. Thus, Walker sought recovery of $41,722.40 in past medical costs, all from his treatment with Kaiser Permanente facilities in Hollywood/Los Angeles, and an unspecified amount for his future medical costs. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering.