On Feb. 14, 2014, plaintiff Marvell Hill, 25, a professional video game player, was picking up a Valentine’s Day gift in the floral department of a Vons Supermarket on Gaffey Street, in San Pedro. Hill saw a vase on the table that he wanted to look at more closely. The table included other merchandise, was part of a display and was surrounded by baskets of freshly cut flowers on the floor. Hill alleged that he stood on one foot as he attempted to reach the vase on the table and then fell into the display, allegedly his back and a knee. Hill sued the operator of the supermarket, The Vons Cos. Inc., alleging that the company was liable for the dangerous condition that caused his fall. A related company, Safeway Inc., was also initially named as a defendant, but it was dismissed prior to trial, as it was determined that Safeway was an improper entity. Hill claimed that he slipped on water that was on the floor near the display and that the water came from the baskets of flowers. He alleged that the water spill resulted from customers picking up the baskets while they were shopping. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that there was a high volume of shoppers in the floral section that day because it was Valentine’s Day. The plaintiff’s retail business expert opined that the high volume of customer traffic increased the possibility of water spilling from the baskets. The expert also opined that Vons should have put mats in front of the display to prevent slips on a wet floor. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that, based on how the floral display was set up, Hill had to stand on one foot in order to reach the vase on the table and that this made it more likely that Hill would fall. Counsel further argued that because of the high number of customers near the floral display, the store should have had more employees police the area for spills. Vons’ counsel contended that there were a sufficient number of staff members in the floral section and that while normally there is only one employee in the floral department, there were four or five employees there on the date in question because of the expected high traffic. Counsel also disputed the presence of water on the floor, contending that none of the employees had noticed any water prior to the fall. Defense counsel also insisted that employees were conducting sweeps of the area four to five times per hour, on top of their regular inspections, and that Hill simply lost his balance when he fell. The defense’s biomechanics expert did coefficient of friction testing on the floor surrounding the floral display, and opined that the floor is not unreasonably slippery when wet. He also opined that the use of mats inside a store is up to the employees’ discretion. Several Von employees also testified that the store doesn’t typically use mats in front of displays because they create a tripping hazard. The employees also claimed that no one else has ever slipped on water from the flower display in their store. Defense counsel further maintained that the setup of the display was safe, noting that there was approximately one foot of space between each of the flower baskets on the floor so that customers could walk between the baskets easily. Counsel also noted that while Hill is over six feet tall, the floral manager who set up the display is about nine inches shorter than Hill. Defense counsel argued that if the manager could reach everything in the display easily, than the taller Hill should have been able to do so, as well. As a result, counsel argued that there was no reason for Hill to stand on one foot to reach the display. In addition, the defense’s biomechanics expert testified that the mechanism of injury for a meniscus tear is a torsional force to the knee and that this type of force is consistent with a loss of balance, rather than a slip and fall., Hill went home from the scene and then presented to Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center San Pedro later that day. He initially claimed pain to his right knee, and was diagnosed with a recurrent subluxation of his right patella. He was treated and released. Hill was referred to a pain management specialist, and he told that doctor that he had radiating pain down his right leg. Hill then underwent an MRI that showed bulging lumbar discs at the L2-3 and L4-5 levels. Hill was also diagnosed with an oblique tear of the body of his right medial meniscus. As a result, he began a course of chiropractic treatment and continued seeing the pain management doctor. Over the next two years, Hill received three or four epidural injections of steroid-based painkillers. He also received a facet block injection. After conservative treatment failed, Hill underwent surgery on his right knee in 2015. After the surgery, his doctor diagnosed a complex tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. Hill then underwent some post-surgery physical therapy. In 2016, Hill met with a neurosurgeon regarding his lower back pain. That same day, Hill underwent an MRI that showed a herniated lumbar disc at the L4-5 level. However, at trial, the neurosurgeon claimed that the L4-5 herniation was present on both the 2014 and 2016 MRIs. Hill ultimately underwent surgery on his lumbar spine in July 2016. The procedure included a hemilaminotomy and a microdiscectomy at L4-5. He then continued seeing pain management doctors through the middle of 2017. Hill admitted that he had recovered from the knee injury, but he claimed he will need continued pain management and orthopedic treatment for his back. He also claimed he would need pain medication, imaging studies, lumbar facet injections and a lumbar fusion. His treating neurosurgeon also opined, during depositions, that Hill would need a spinal stimulator, but he did not mention it at trial. Hill claimed that he can no longer skateboard or play basketball because of his . He also claimed his affect his relationship with his children, who were born after the subject fall. Specifically, Hill alleged that he can’t pick up his children or get down on the floor to play with them for extended periods of time. Hill sought recovery of past and future medical expenses, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel noted that during the initial trip to the hospital, Hill only complained about pain to his knee, not his back. Counsel also noted that while the hospital told Hill to follow up with an orthopedist, Hill never did so. Instead, Hill supposedly called his attorney, who then recommended the pain management specialist. Defense counsel contended that the pain management specialist gave Hill MRI referrals for his knee, back and neck, even though Hill barely mentioned his back and neck during his appointment with that doctor. Defense counsel also contended that Hill never mentioned back pain to the pain management doctor, either, and, instead, Hill allegedly told the doctor that his back pain was the same as it was prior to the fall. Defense counsel noted that Hill also claimed an injury to his lower back following a 2010 car accident. Counsel also pointed out that Hill had the same hemilaminotomy and microdiscectomy surgery at the L4-5 level in 2012, prior to the subject fall, and that the operative notes for the 2012 and 2016 surgeries were exactly the same. Per the defense, the neurosurgeon who performed the 2016 surgery specifically wrote that he removed the medial facet and ligament flavum, even though they were also supposedly removed during the 2012 surgery. Defense counsel argued that this was not possible and, thus, disputed the neurosurgeon’s testimony. Counsel also argued that the second surgery was unnecessary. Defense counsel further noted that Hill was involved in another car accident in 2015, and argued that if there was a disc herniation on Hill’s 2016 lumbar MRI, it was due to the 2015 crash and not the subject fall. In addition, defense counsel contended that in December 2013, just a few months before the subject fall, Hill complained of pain to his back and that even though the 2016 back surgery supposedly addressed the left side of Hill’s spine, Hill had previously complained of radiating pain on the right side of his body. The defense’s retained neuroradiology expert reviewed various MRIs of Hill’s spine from 2007 to 2017, and opined that the films showed a progression of degenerative changes. The expert also opined that there were no acute findings on either the 2014 or 2016 lumbar MRIs. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon also opined that neither the 2014 nor 2016 MRIs indicated the need for spinal surgery. Defense counsel specifically asked Hill if he could jump, kick, sprint or climb after the fall, and Hill supposedly said that he could not. However, the defense presented testimony from a tow truck driver who had towed Hill’s fiancée’s vehicle in August 2018. The driver testified that Hill ran after the truck, climbed onto it, jumped up and down on the cab of the truck, and eventually jumped off. As a result, defense counsel disputed the severity of Hill’s .