On July 24, 2014, plaintiff Nicholas Espinosa, 59, an owner of a meat wholesaling business, was bicycling on a bike path that runs through “Catalina Landing,” an office and terminal complex in the city of Long Beach. Catalina Landing also has a ferry service operated by Catalina Channel Express that runs to and from Catalina Island, and passengers must cross the city’s bike path during the loading and unloading process to get to the ferries. As Espinosa rode through Catalina Landing, he struck baggage and/or a ferry passenger, and he was thrown off of his bicycle. He landed on his head and was knocked unconscious. Espinosa sued the maintainer of the bike path, the city of Long Beach; the property’s tenant, Catalina Channel Express; and the property owner that operated Catalina Landing, AC-Catalina Landing LLC (which was erroneously sued as the Abbey Company, LLC). Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that AC-Catalina Landing and Catalina Channel Express were negligent in failing to adequately control the passengers and other pedestrians in the area and keep them off of the bike path. Counsel also contended that the city’s bike path constituted a dangerous condition because it ran through the middle of the ferry boat loading and unloading area. The city filed a demurrer based on recreation trail immunity, Government Code § 831.4. While the trial court overruled the demurrer, the city took a writ, which was granted. The trial court was then ordered to reverse its earlier decision and sustain the demurrer without leave. Accordingly, the city was out of the case, and the matter only continued against Catalina Channel Express and AC-Catalina Landing LLC. Defense counsel for AC-Catalina Landing and Catalina Channel Express noted that, at his deposition, Espinosa drew on photographs of the area to locate where the collision took place and that he later realized that the actual location was about 60 feet from where he had indicated. Counsel also noted that Espinosa was not truthful about his mistake, which would have made his case stronger. Defense counsel contended that AC-Catalina Landing and Catalina Channel Express had exercised reasonable care with respect to the bike path and that AC-Catalina Landing and Catalina Channel Express repeatedly complained to the city about the bike path and the hazard it posed to passengers and pedestrians. Counsel also contended that AC-Catalina Landing and Catalina Channel Express repeatedly met with the city and convinced it to undertake a traffic engineering study 10 months before the accident. The study led the city to add striping though Catalina Landing, including crosswalks across the bike path in the passenger loading zone, and to install signs warning bicycles to yield the right of way to pedestrians. Defense counsel argued that even after the changes, AC-Catalina Landing and Catalina Channel Express continued to complain to the city, asking it to do more, including to reroute the bike path altogether. In addition, Catalina Channel Express assigned three of its employees to patrol the loading area to try to keep passengers and pedestrians off of the bike path. However, defense counsel argued that Espinosa was speeding through the area and did not yield the right of way. Specifically, counsel contended that the posted speed limit in the area was 5 mph and that Espinosa was riding 10 mph, at a minimum, and more likely between 18 and 20 mph, based upon their accident reconstruction., Espinosa suffered a concussion and a subdural hematoma as a result of his fall. He was rendered unconscious at the scene, but he regained consciousness before being taken to a hospital, where he remained there for three days. Espinosa and his medical experts claimed that he sustained a traumatic brain injury, resulting in headaches, memory loss, dizziness, sleeping problems and a short temper. Espinosa also claimed that he suffers from depression. The plaintiff’s neurology expert opined that Espinosa suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the accident and that the injury caused his memory loss and mood problems. Espinosa sought recovery of $50,000 in past medical costs, which included the hospital bill and out-of-pocket expenses, and $12,000 in future medical costs for the treatment of his depression, which was allegedly caused by his traumatic brain injury. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Espinosa’s claim that he suffered a permanent brain injury and argued that Espinosa had fully recovered from his concussion within weeks and, at most, months after the accident with no residuals. Counsel also noted that Espinosa failed to present evidence about any other medical expenses incurred after he left the hospital, other than his out-of-pocket expenses. The defense’s neurology expert opined that Espinosa’s ongoing symptoms were the result of pre-accident medical conditions, unrelated to the accident, including diabetes, high blood pressure and atrial fibrillation. The expert also opined that the injury looked worse than it was because Espinosa was on blood thinners.