On Aug. 31, 2015, plaintiffs Nancy Cartia, 76, and her husband, James Cartia, 83, both retirees, visited the gravesite of Mr. Cartia’s first wife and daughter at the Winton Cemetery, in Winton. While they were there, Mr. Cartia allegedly tripped on some grass and fell into the 2-foot-tall family headstone, knocking the 500 pound headstone over onto Ms. Cartia’s right leg while she was kneeling behind it. Ms. Cartia claimed to her right leg, right knee, and right wrist. The Cartias sued the maintainer of the cemetery, Winton Cemetery District; and the creator of the subject headstone, Gateway Memorial Inc. The Cartias alleged that Winton Cemetery failed to properly maintain the cemetery and that Gateway Memorial failed to properly create or assemble the headstone. They further alleged that the defendants’ negligence created a dangerous condition. Prior to trial, Gateway Memorial was dismissed from the case. Mr. Cartia purchased the subject headstone for his deceased wife in September 1990 and it was glued to its base when it was installed. However, the Cartias claimed that the headstone was loose at the time of the accident and that a properly secured headstone should have withstood someone falling into it. They also claimed that the cemetery failed to properly maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Specifically, the Cartias alleged that an employee missed the headstone during a physical inspection of every headstone in the cemetery that was done three months prior to the accident and that the Winton Cemetery had constructive knowledge of it, creating a dangerous condition of public property. The plaintiffs’ safety expert opined that the subject headstone was not properly secured, which caused it to collapse onto Ms. Cartia. He also opined that Winton Cemetery’s inspection system was unreasonable. The plaintiff’s glue expert opined that the glue used to secure the subject headstone was worn and should have been replaced. Winton Cemetery’s defense counsel contended that at no time did any person, including the Cartias (who visited the gravesite every month), report or complain to Winton Cemetery about the headstone being cracked, loose, in need of repair or maintenance, or otherwise in danger of toppling over. Counsel also contended that Winton Cemetery performed a physical inspection of every headstone, including the subject one, two months before the alleged accident, but that it did not notice any defects or concerns about the subject headstone at that time. Counsel further contended that Winton Cemetery performed a visual inspection of the entire cemetery on the morning of the alleged accident, as was customary practice at the beginning of each day, and that it did not notice any defects or concerns about the subject headstone at that time either. In addition, defense counsel contended that there had only been one other incident in the history of Winton Cemetery where a headstone fell onto a member of the public, but noted that the incident did not involve the subject headstone, but, instead, involved a smaller and lighter headstone. Thus, defense counsel argued that there was no dangerous condition in the cemetery. The defense’s glue expert opined that at least 50 percent of the glue on the subject headstone was working at the time of the incident. The defense’s safety expert further opined that the headstone, even if it became unglued, was not a foreseeable risk of injury. In addition, defense counsel argued that two witnesses observed Mr. Cartia and another bystander try to pick up the headstone after it had allegedly fallen on Ms. Cartia, but that they dropped it back onto Ms. Cartia., Ms. Cartia sustained crush to her right leg’s tibia and fibula. She also claimed she sustained a fracture of her right wrist and medial meniscus tear of her right knee. She was subsequently taken to a local emergency room after the accident. Ms. Cartia ultimately underwent one surgery on her right wrist with the implantation of hardware, and surgery on her right knee. She also underwent numerous surgeries to repair the multiple fractures to the right tibia and fibula. Specifically, Ms. Cartia underwent an internal fixation with the placement of hardware and remained hospitalized for three months. She then underwent rehabilitation, but had to undergo a hardware removal due to complications and an exterior fixator was used. In addition, she had to undergo a debridement to remove necrotic tissue. Ms. Cartia also received additional treatment and care at a senior care facility. Ms. Cartia claimed she continues to suffer from residual pain and limitations, affecting her ability to perform activities of daily living. The plaintiff’s treating orthopedist opined that Ms. Cartia’s were caused by the accident. He also opined that Ms. Cartia would require a total knee replacement, additional physical therapy, and daily assistance for the rest of her life. Thus, Ms. Cartia sought recovery of past and future medical expenses, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Her husband presented a derivative claim, seeking recovery of damages for his loss of consortium. The defense’s medical experts disputed Ms. Cartia’s residual , and opined that the wrist and knee were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.