On the evening of Sept. 16, 2017, plaintiff Sarah Carlson, 30, a schoolteacher, was walking along Fourth Street, toward the intersection with Townsend Street, on her way to Caltrain Station, in San Francisco. She entered an active construction zone related to the Central Subway Project. In connection with that work, Tutor Perini Corp., which was working under a contract with the city and county of San Francisco, had created a curb condition that abutted private property at the northeast corner of Fourth and Townsend streets. As Carlson and her brother walked to Caltrain Station, Carlson encountered the curb condition, and tripped and fell. She suffered an injury of an ankle. Carlson sued Tutor Perini; the city and county of San Francisco; and the nearby property owners, HD Buttercup, The Creamery, Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. and 280 Townsend Street, LLC. Carlson alleged that the defendants were negligent in the repair and/or maintenance of the subject area, creating a dangerous condition Several of the defendants were dismissed from the case prior to trial, and the matter only continued against Tutor Perini and the city and county of San Francisco. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the curb condition was supposed to have a handrail installed and that the construction plans, which included a design drawing prepared five years earlier, in 2012, provided that a handrail was necessary to alleviate a tripping hazard. However, counsel contended that as of the night of the incident, Tutor Perini had not yet ordered the handrail, despite the fact that the curb condition had been created 7.5 months earlier and despite the fact that it funneled pedestrian traffic directly over the curb condition. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Tutor Perini created the dangerous condition by not providing a handrail and that the city and county of San Francisco was liable for Tutor Perini’s actions. Defense counsel argued that the curb condition was not unreasonably dangerous and that Carlson was to blame for the accident, as Carlson was rushing to catch a train and misstepped. The defense’s safety expert opined that Carlson was inattentive at the time of the fall., Carlson sustained a trimalleolar fracture of her left ankle. She was immediately taken to a hospital, and she ultimately underwent three surgeries on the ankle. Carlson’s treating surgeon testified that, during Carlson’s most recent ankle surgery, he found significant arthrofibrosis, a buildup of scar tissue around the joint. He opined that Carlson will develop degenerative arthritis. Likewise, Carlson’s expert orthopedist opined that not only would Carlson develop degenerative arthritis, but that she would also potentially need future treatment, including an ankle fusion or ankle replacement. Carlson testified that she was worried that her ankle would progressively deteriorate to the point of not being able to play with her children, when she had them. Carlson sought recovery of $95,664.91 in past medical costs and $15,892.83 in past loss of wages. She also sought recovery for her potential future medical expenses, and for her past and future pain and suffering. The defense’s expert orthopedist acknowledged that Carlson might develop degenerative arthritis and that Carlson might need an ankle fusion or ankle replacement. However, the expert also opined that it was unlikely.