On Oct. 6, 2009, plaintiff Jacqueline Ingram, 56, who was on disability for an on the job accident, was ascending the front porch stairs of her separated husband’s apartment in Sacramento when she allegedly tripped and fell. Ingram sustained a comminuted fracture of her right heel. Ingram sued the owner of the apartment complex, Lakeview Garden Apartment Holmes, and the property manager, FPI Management Inc. Ingram claimed that the defendants failed to maintain the porch/landing in a reasonably safe manner, resulting in a warped board. She also claimed the defendants failed to warn of the height differential, causing her to trip over a height discrepancy of three-fourths of an inch. Defense counsel noted that Ingram’s alleged fall was an unwitnessed incident. Counsel contended that the height discrepancy was one-half of an inch and that this height differential was a trivial defect. Counsel also contended that the porch served Ingram’s separated husband’s apartment only and was not a common area. Thus, defense counsel asserted that neither Lakeview nor FPI had notice of the condition, as Ingram’s estranged husband did not notify either them of anything wrong. Lakeview and FPI added that if they were notified of the alleged differential, they would have fixed the condition., Two days after the alleged fall, Ingram presented to a hospital and was diagnosed with a comminuted calcaneus fracture of the right heel. She subsequently underwent open reduction and internal fixation with the placement of seven screws and wire. She did not undergo any physical therapy after the surgery. Ingram complained of pain and numbness along the lateral aspect of the right foot, as well as numbness in her toes. She also complained that her gait had changed and that her right heel was wider than her left heel. Ingram claimed that as a result of the difference in her heels, she could not wear the same shoe size on both feet and had to purchase a bigger right shoe, than for the left. She also claimed she could now only wear flats. In addition, Ingram claimed that she used to walk up to 2 hours a day, three days a week, with her grandchildren and that she used to go dancing with her girlfriends, but that she can no longer do these things. Defense counsel disputed Ingram’s alleged limitations and contended that if she did have limitations, they were minimal. Counsel also noted that the plaintiff’s treating physician testified that during the time of Ingram’s worker’s compensation claim, Ingram complained of severe back pain, right leg pain and claimed that her right leg was giving out without warning. However, defense counsel noted that Ingram did not make these significant claims at her deposition. The defense’s biomechanical and orthopedic feet experts each testified that even with a significant amount of force placed on the right heel, as shown during a worst-case-scenario demonstration, it still would not have been enough force to cause Ingram’s heel injury. Thus, the experts opined that Ingram’s injury had to have been caused by other means.