On March 10, 2016, plaintiff Tanaz Zamani, 36, was jogging on Clark Lane, near its intersection with Steinhart Avenue, in Redondo Beach, when she tripped on an elevated portion of the curb. She injured her nose, neck and back. Zamani sued the owner of the sidewalk, the city of Redondo Beach, and the owners of the property adjacent to the sidewalk, Gilbert and Rosa Cota. Zamani alleged that the city and the Cotas were negligent in their repair and/or maintenance of the curb, creating a dangerous condition of public property. Arakelian Enterprises Inc. (doing business as Athens Services), John Emmerson, Ashkan Ghavami, Gordon Schaye, Soma Medical Group Inc. and David Wu were later added as defendants, but they were ultimately dismissed from the case prior to trial. Zamani claimed that the Cotas had a tree on their property whose roots caused the elevation on the curb. She also claimed that the Cotas negligently placed their garbage bins on the sidewalk, causing her to run closer to the street, rather than on the sidewalk. She also claimed that the city should have had notice of the condition of the curb, but it failed to repair the dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s counsel presented photographs of the sidewalk to show an uplift in the curb. Counsel contended that the elevation in the curb top was 1 inch to three-quarters of an inch, depending on where it was measured. The plaintiff’s physical engineering expert opined that the curb’s condition was dangerous and that the city should have seen the condition during a regular inspection. The Cotas’ counsel disputed the qualifications of the plaintiff’s physical engineering expert and the foundation for the expert’s opinions prior to his trial testimony. As a result, the Cotas’ counsel was granted a motion for a 402 hearing five days into trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the expert was qualified and had specifically testified at least 30 times within the trial court about tree and root uplift. However, the court limited the expert’s testimony after determining that the expert could not testify about the California Streets and Highways Code, Redondo Beach ordinance violations, and whether the roots from the Cotas’ tree and shrubs caused the uplift. The Cotas claimed that their tree and shrub roots did not cause any uplift in the cement curb and that they were not responsible for the curb’s condition because they did not own the sidewalk or curb where Zamani fell. They also claimed that Zamani was at fault for her own because she was not paying attention to where she was jogging, which caused her to trip and fall. The Cotas’ certified safety expert opined that the curb’s uplift was trivial and did not constitute a dangerous condition of public property. The expert also opined that curb’s condition was open and obvious. However, in response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the uplift could not be both trivial and obvious. A nonparty witness, who worked for the city of Redondo Beach, testified that the sidewalk was solely the city’s responsibility. The city’s counsel agreed that the Cotas neither controlled nor maintained the sidewalk or curb, and argued that the sidewalk’s condition did not constitute a dangerous condition of public property. The city’s counsel also argued that Zamani was negligent for failing to pay attention to where she was jogging, thereby causing her own . The city attempted to present evidence that the Cotas had received notice about the uplift related to their tree, but the court ruled that the evidence was too damaging to the Cotas to be admitted to the jury., Zamani sustained a displaced septonasal fracture. She also claimed she suffered cervical and lumbar sprains and strains as a result of the accident. Zamani was transported by ambulance to Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center Torrance, where she was treated and discharged that same day. Four days later, on March 14, 2016, she underwent open reduction surgery to her nasal septum. Zamani also underwent a couple of months of chiropractic care to treat her spinal . Following her septonasal surgery, Zamani developed a deformity to her nose that left it crooked and affected her ability to breath. However, her cervical and lumbar healed. The plaintiff’s doctors recommended that Zamani undergo a submucous resection of the nose, which is when the bony and cartilaginous structures of the nasal septum are partially removed surgically from below the mucous membrane, and recommended a secondary septoplasty, along with corrections of the nasal pyramid asymmetry and nose deformity. However, she had not undergone the procedure by the time of trial. Zamani claimed that she had not had the procedure because she needed to wait a few years before undergoing another nose surgery. The plaintiff’s emergency medicine expert opined that Zamani’s were serious, and the plaintiff’s cosmetic surgery expert opined that Zamani’s future medical costs would total $20,000. Zamani sought recovery of $8,058 in past medical costs and $20,000 in future medical costs. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. In total, she sought recovery of $350,000. The city’s expert otolaryngologist agreed that Zamani would benefit from the follow-up procedures, but opined that the cost of future surgery would only total $7,500. The Cotas’ counsel did not dispute Zamani’s .