On Jan. 18, 2010, plaintiff Vivian Guy, 55, a correction facility cook supervisor, walked through a parking area during a heavy rainstorm and entered a New Albertsons grocery store in Victorville. While her husband went to retrieve a shopping cart, Guy wiped her shoes on the mats that New Albertsons had placed in front of the store. At around 2 p.m., after being in the store roughly 20-30 minutes, Guy’s foot slipped on a small amount of water, causing her to fall and injure her knee, shoulder and back. The source of the water was unknown to all parties. Guy filed a claim against New Albertsons alleging that the store failed to properly maintain their premises. She alleged that had New Albertsons performed a regular sweep of their aisles, they would have discovered the defective condition and had an opportunity to cure it. Shortly after the claim was filed, New Albertsons sent Guy a correspondence denying any liability and denying Guys’ claim. After Guy retained counsel, New Albertsons again rejected the claim, stating that New Albertsons had no comparative negligence whatsoever. Guy originally sued the store’s parent company, Supervalu Inc., and Supervalu/Albertsons Inc., but the matter was amended when it was determined that New Albertsons Inc. was responsible for the maintenance of the store. New Albertsons denied the condition was unreasonably dangerous and denied any negligence in the operation of the store., Guy filled out an incident report and was taken to an emergency room, where she was told that she might have incurred a tear in her knee. She was ultimately diagnosed with a fractured patella and a partial meniscal tear of the left knee, as well as soft-tissue to her left shoulder and back. Guy began treating with a specialist immediately thereafter. Guy claimed her right knee became symptomatic as a result of favoring her left knee. She alleged that as a result of her , she was unable to perform her job duties as a correctional facility cook supervisor without accommodation and that she lost significant overtime opportunities. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Guy’s total medical specials came out to roughly $9,761.37 and contended that Guy would probably need future surgery amounting to $45,000. Counsel also contended that Guy had over $17,000 in past loss of earnings, according to Guy’s payroll records, and would lose an additional unspecified amount for Guy’s future loss of earnings as a result of the time missed from the future surgery. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of the claimed by Guy. Counsel also disputed causation, stating that some of the claimed by Guy pre-existed the accident and were degenerative. The defense’s orthopedic surgery expert concurred that future surgery may be required, but opined that it would be at a much lower estimated cost of $15,000 to $20,000.