On April 20, 2010, at approximately 1 p.m., plaintiff Ernesto Bues, 57, a farm manager visiting from Argentina, was walking in the parking lot of an Inglewood Motel 6, where he was staying, when he slipped and fell. Bues fractured his left leg in the fall. Bues sued the motel operator, Motel 6 Operating LP; the operator’s general partner, G6 Hospitality LLC (formerly known as Accor North America Inc.); and the property owner, G6 Hospitality Property LLC. Bues alleged the defendants negligently maintained a fire lane curb, creating a dangerous condition. Bues had also sued other associated entities, including G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC, Blackstone Group LP, Blackstone Real Estate Partners VII LP and the former name of Hospitality LLC, Accor North America Inc. However, Accor was let out of the case, and G6 Hospitality Franchising, Blackstone Group and Blackstone Real Estate were never served and dismissed prior to trial. Bues claimed that he slipped and fell on a red fire lane curb in the Motel 6’s parking lot. He contended that the motel’s personnel negligently prepared and painted the fire lane curb, and that the motel’s personnel failed to barricade the area until the paint was completely dry. He also contended that the motel’s personnel used the wrong type of paint, in that the paint used was only meant for metal. In addition, Bues contended that the old paint should have been removed and replaced with a textured paint or paint mixed with grit. Bues ultimately claimed that the paint was not completely dry and stable and that the lack of proper adhesive properties, combined with the overcast weather condition of the day, created an unreasonably slippery condition of the fire lane curb. Defense counsel contended that the motel’s personnel properly prepared and painted the fire lane curb with the appropriate paint. Counsel also contended that no slipping hazard or dangerous condition existed with the curb on the date of loss, and that Bues simply slipped or tripped and fell due to his own inattentiveness or otherwise., On the date of the accident, Bues was taken to a private orthopedist and was diagnosed with an angulated spiral fracture of his left tibia. The orthopedist subsequently recommended open reduction and internal fixation surgery, but Bues declined the procedure and, instead, opted to treat the fracture with closed reduction casting. As a result, Bues was placed in a full leg cast, which was then reduced to a short leg cast and then further reduced to a walking boot, over the duration of six months. He also followed up with his orthopedist during that time. Bues claimed that while his fracture healed, it did so with an eight-degree angulation that caused arthritis in his left ankle. He claimed that as a result, he now requires an osteotomy to treat the condition, at a cost of roughly $40,000. Bues further claimed $1,860 in past medical costs, and $70,000 to $100,000 in past lost earnings, claiming his recovery caused him to miss an entire planting season at his Argentina farm. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Bues $700,000 in total damages, which included damages for Bues’ pain and suffering. Defense counsel did not dispute Bues’ fracture or associated past medical costs. However, counsel argued that the angulation was slight, 3 degrees or less, and not medically significant. Defense counsel also argued that the condition does not require future surgery or treatment. In addition, counsel disputed Bues’ prognosis of arthritis and lost earnings, arguing there was no medical reason why Bues could not return home.