On Dec. 8, 2015, plaintiff Marie Underhill, 69, tripped and fell on an unfinished flagstone pathway to the entrance of a house in Palos Verdes that was being remodeled by her friend, Lynne Testa. Underhill was friends with Testa for 36 years, but Testa passed away in October 2015. At the time of her death, Testa was in the process of remodeling the Palos Verdes home that she had bought for the sole purpose of flipping it once upgrades were competed. Part of the remodeling included a flagstone pathway to the entrance of the house. After Testa passed away, the executor of Testa’s estate asked Underhill to help him get the house ready for sale. Specifically, he wanted Underhill to let him know what work needed to be done, work with contractors to oversee the work, and complete an estate sale on the property. He subsequently paid Underhill approximately $10,500 out of the fee he was entitled to receive. Thus, on Dec. 8, 2015, the home’s pathway appeared to be unfinished. While the flagstones were anchored, there were still gaps between the stones that measured approximately 2.5 inches deep and 3 inches wide. Underhill claimed that while she was walking on the pathway, her shoe got caught in a gap between the stones, causing her fall forward and strike her face and left knee on the concrete. The only witness to Underhill’s fall was her ex-husband. Underhill sued the estate of Testa, alleging that the unfinished flagstone walkway constituted a dangerous condition. The plaintiff’s safety expert opined that the walkway violated a number of California Commercial building codes and sections, constituting general negligence and premises liability. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Testa, while she was alive, and her estate, after her death, were negligent in the use or maintenance of the subject walkway based on the building code. Defense counsel argued that the house was a single family residence and, as such, the California residential codes would apply. Counsel further argued that the walkway did not violate any of those codes. (Defense counsel was precluded from discussing the fact that Underhill was a beneficiary in Testa’s will, based on a motion in limine brought by plaintiff’s counsel.), Underhill sustained a non-displaced nasal fracture, a left knee contusion, a large laceration on the forehead and a mild concussion. She also claimed that her knee injury aggravated a pre-existing condition in her left knee and that her head caused a mild traumatic brain injury. Underhill was subsequently treated by paramedics at the scene and taken to Torrance Memorial Medical Center’s emergency room, where she received 21 stitches in the shape of an “X” to treat the large forehead laceration. Underhill was seen by her primary care physician a number of times for her ongoing complaints, and the physician referred her to several neurologists because of her cognitive complaints. The first two treating neurologists, Dr. Schenley Co and Dr. Tim Cha, saw Underhill within 30 and 60 days of the fall, respectively. At that time, the neurologists diagnosed Underhill with a mild concussion, but gave her neurological clearance. Underhill then saw a third treating neurologist, Dr. David Edelman, who sent her to Dr. Johnny Wen, a treating neuropsychologist who performed tests and concluded that Underhill suffered from post-concussion syndrome and validated Underhill’s subjective complaints. Wen testified that he believed Underhill’s cognitive complaints were a result of the subject fall. Edelman also came to the same conclusion based on Wen’s test results. Underhill claimed that she was left with a small scar on her forehead. She also claimed that as a result of her mild traumatic brain injury, she suffers from short term memory loss, concentration problems and confusion. Specifically, Underhill claimed she would forget things such as conversations, whether she ate dinner, where she was going when driving, why she was writing a check, and even whether she gave her dog medication. She further claimed that she would lose her train of thought and that her condition caused a worsening of her depression and anxiety. Underhill waived her past medical specials, and only sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Specifically, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $1,020,500 in damages, including $400,000 for Underhill’s past pain and suffering and $620,500 ($100 per day for the next 17 years of her life) for Underhill’s future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Underhill’s mild traumatic brain injury claims, and had the depositions of Underhill’s first two treating neurologists read at trial, noting that Co and Cha gave Underhill neurological clearance. Defense counsel also noted that Underhill had been diagnosed with breast cancer in December 2017 and argued that any findings from the plaintiff’s third treating neurologist, Edelman, and treating neuropsychologist, Wen, would be skewed by Underhill’s recent diagnosis and treatment.