On Dec. 1, 2009, plaintiff Ann Zimmerman, 44, a controller at Toyota of Clovis, was at work when a leak sprung in the building’s dual booster pumps system. At approximately 1 p.m., Bogie’s Pumps Systems sent out a service repairman to work on the booster pump. After repairing the leak, the repairman turned the pumps back on and opened the building’s water supply, causing the PSI gauge to go to either 100 or between 130 and 140. At approximately 3:30 p.m., Zimmerman was using the bathroom and flushed the toilet with her right foot on the plunger and her left foot on the floor. As she was doing so, Zimmerman claimed that the toilet exploded causing a laceration to her left foot. Zimmerman sued Thomas & Associates Inc., which was doing business as Bogie’s Pumps Systems. She brought causes of action for negligence and res ipsa loquitur, alleging that the defendant’s repairman negligently repaired the leak and created a dangerous condition. Zimmerman’s counsel contended that the service repairman from Thomas & Associates over-pressurized the building’s plumbing system with air and water, which caused the explosion. Defense counsel disputed the toilet explosion, contending that the repairman did nothing to increase the existing pressure, that air did not get into the system, and that the pressure at the toilet could not have been adequate to cause the toilet to explode. Counsel argued that water could not have come out of the front of the toilet since it has a hollow area there, which is called a condensation channel by the manufacturer, through which water did not flow. Defense counsel also argued that the area that allegedly broke was already damaged before the subject accident. The defense’s expert material scientist opined that the fracture pattern of the toilet was consistent with an inward movement of the face of the toilet and that there was evidence that the fracture first began in an area on the front of the toilet where pre-existing damage existed. The expert testified that the exact location where the fracture first began was seen in one picture taken shortly after the accident and that the location still had a drop of blood on it. The expert concluded that, within engineering probability, Zimmerman had to have kicked the front of the toilet and broke it. In rebuttal, Zimmerman’s biomedical engineering expert opined that nobody could have identified blood from the photograph and that it would have been impossible for a person to kick the front of the toilet with the configuration of Zimmerman’s body at the time of the explosion. The expert testified that there were no other to Zimmerman’s body, indicating that she did not fall, and that these factors were in the realm of her specialty as an expert, and not of the defense’s metallurgist expert., Zimmerman was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and brought to an emergency room. She sustained a complete laceration to two tendons in the left foot, along with severing of her peroneal nerve and an artery in that foot. The artery was repaired at the E.R. and the wound was stitched. Zimmerman then underwent further surgery two days later due to the risk of contamination since toilet water and debris got into her foot during the accident. This second surgery also repaired the two tendons and artery, as well as blocked off the nerve. Zimmerman claimed she continued to have pain and swelling in her left foot and, in January 2012, underwent surgery to remove a cyst on the tendon and bury the ends of the peroneal nerve. She ultimately missed two weeks of work after the accident and another two weeks following the January 2012 surgery. The plaintiffs’ expert orthopedist testified that Zimmerman suffers from paresthesia and would have long-term problems wearing shoes, as well as standing and walking, along with complete numbness past the original cut out of the front of her foot. Thus, Zimmerman claimed she will have trouble in her work and personal life due to the foot problem. Thus, Zimmerman claimed $48,874.76 in past billed medical costs ($14,273 paid), and stipulated to $3,452.08 in past lost earnings. She additionally sought $150,000 in damages for her past pain and suffering and $360,000 in damages for her future pain and suffering. Her husband, Daniel, sought recovery of $5,000 in damages for his loss of consortium.