On Aug. 29, 2008, at 11:50 a.m., plaintiff Adrienne Wallace, 28, a receiver at Walgreen’s, entered the Food 4 Less located at 24440 Alessandro Boulevard in Moreno Valley, pushing a cart, when she allegedly slipped and fell near the front of the store. Wallace sued Food 4 Less, alleging that the defendant failed to proper clean and maintain the area, creating a dangerous condition. Wallace claimed that she slipped and fell on spilled juice that had been left on the floor. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Food 4 Less’ floor inspection report showed a violation of their policy, as the last inspection prior to the subject incident was at 10:40 a.m., or 70 minutes before Wallace’s fall, and that the next inspection was not until 1:20 p.m. Counsel further contended that the store created the dangerous condition because the juice Wallace slipped on was coming from a display that the employees put out. Therefore, the defendant’s employees should have noticed the condition, counsel argued. Plaintiff’s counsel called the assistant manager who took the incident report and allegedly failed to document the required hourly inspections; the store manager who was not working at the time of the incident, but who testified about the store’s policy; the employee who signed the verifications, and; the Safety Manager for Food 4 Less. According to plaintiff’s counsel, all those employees testified to knowing that the store’s floor is less slip resistant when it is wet, and that this condition is one of the reasons why they have the hourly sweep and inspection policy. Each witness also testified as to what they are supposed to do when an incident occurs, such as fill out the incident report, take photos, get the surveillance video, obtain a “Sweeper’s Declaration” to confirm who really was the last person to sweep, etc. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that these testimonies demonstrated that each employee witness did not follow the store’s policies and procedures. The plaintiff’s safety expert testified that the floor was slippery when wet, but otherwise met all the standards of slip resistance and was a safe walking surface when dry. He opined that the market should have used a high slip resistant tile in their entire store. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the produce department of this particular market has the high slip resistant tile, which all of the employees testified was there because there is more likely to be water on the floor in the produce department. However, defense counsel noted that this incident was not in or near the produce department. Defense counsel argued that Wallace continued to shop without reporting the incident, and that only after she finished shopping did she came back into the store and report slipping and falling in a medium pizza-sized puddle of red liquid. Thus, defense counsel argued that Wallace did not fall as she contended and that if she did, it was her own fault due to her inattention due to the condition being open and obvious, if the juice was as she described. Furthermore, the defense’s safety expert opined that because Wallace was inattentive, wearing smooth-soled flip flops and was 320 pounds at the time of the fall, the plaintiff was a cause of the slip and fall. In addition, defense counsel agreed with the plaintiff’s expert in that the store’s floors met all accepted standards of slip resistance, and argued that there was no evidence of the alleged slip or fall other than Wallace’s testimony., Wallace’s husband drove her to the hospital, where she was treated and released with a diagnosis of a left knee sprain and a lower back sprain. Thereafter, she treated conservatively with a chiropractor and underwent physical therapy for approximately three months. When her pain did not resolve, Wallace was referred to an orthopedist for an MRI and was diagnosed with a horizontal tear involving the mid-segment of the lateral meniscus in her left knee, as well as soft-tissue to her lower back. She then underwent a left knee arthroscopy on May 20, 2009, performed by her treating orthopedic surgeon. Thereafter, Wallace underwent physical therapy and obtained a good result from the treatment. She was ultimately able to return to work at full capacity. According to defense counsel, Wallace claimed that she will need a total knee replacement as a result of the arthroscopic meniscectomy and that her past medical expenses exceeded $50,000, while her future medical expenses would exceed $100,000. However, defense counsel argued that the claimed expenses for the arthroscopic surgery were unreasonable and excessive. The defense’s orthopedic surgeon opined that Wallace’s knee pain was caused by pre-existing arthritis to her knees due to her weight. He further testified that the tear revealed on the MRI was not the cause of her ongoing pain.