On June 19, 2012, plaintiff Steven Micciche, a sales representative in his 50s who worked for a meat packing company, was taking a shower in the bathroom of his house in Monrovia when he touched the showerhead with his left hand and received an electric shock. Prior to the incident, in around 1998, Micciche did a remodel of his house. He hired a contractor and an electrical contractor to oversee and assist with the remodel. Micciche claimed that Southern California Edison failed to make a permanent connection of the neutral (a reference point within an electrical distribution system) at his house’s weatherhead (a weatherproof service drop entry point where overhead or underground power or telephone wires enter a building). He also claimed that the city of Monrovia failed to notify Southern California Edison that it had completed its inspection of the electrical service panel on or about Dec. 23, 1998. Micciche alleged that as a result, when he touched the showerhead in June 2012, he was shocked with 120 volts, causing him to collapse inside the shower stall. Micciche subsequently claimed to his back, and left shoulder, forearm, and small finger. Micciche sued Southern California Edison and the city of Monrovia. Plaintiff’s counsel called to testify the contractor and the electrical contractor who worked on the remodel of Micciche’s house. They testified that everything was done right during the remodel of the house. Thus, the plaintiff’s electrical contracting expert opined that to cause the shock, there had to be a fault at the temporary neutral connection at the weatherhead. Southern California Edison claimed that it did not receive notice from the city that it had completed its inspection of the electrical service panel. However, the city contended that notice was sent. The city’s counsel argued that under Government Code § 815.6, the city was only liable if there was a mandatory duty articulated by the plaintiff. Judge Laura Ellison denied the city’s second demurrer and multiple motions for nonsuit. However, according to the city’s counsel, Ellison indicated, post-trial, that if there was any error of law, it was the failure of the court to not grant the city’s motion for nonsuit, as the plaintiff did not present any enactment setting forth a mandatory duty on the part of the city to notify Southern California Edison and that there is no such duty. During trial, counsel for the city and Southern California Edison both argued that the accident had nothing to do with the weatherhead connections, but that it was due to an electrical short in the house that touched the water pipe. Counsel contended that although the water pipe had dielectric unions (couplings that act as corrosion and electrical barriers between two dissimilar metals, in this case between a galvanized pipe and a copper pipe), they were not properly bonded. Counsel contended that as the electrical system was not grounded to the water pipe, there was a disconnection in the system, such that if an electrical short occurred, it would cause the circuit breaker to not trip and not stop errant electricity. The city’s electrical engineer and contracting expert opined that there was a short in the system and that the presence of non-bonded dielectric unions prevented the circuit breaker from tripping, or stopping the electricity. The electrical engineering expert, a professor, for Southern California Edison examined a slide from the plaintiff’s expert’s power point presentation and graded it with an “F.” He testified that if the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was correct, and the problem with the electricity was sourced to the weatherhead at the roof of the house, then there would have be electrical problems throughout the whole house. The defense expert noted that, instead, Micciche and his wife testified that the problem was isolated to the bathroom where Micciche was shocked. Thus, defense counsel argued that the plaintiff’s expert was discredited, as there were no other electrical problems throughout the house, including in the other bathrooms with showers., Micciche suffered an electric shock of 120 volts. Monrovia Fire Rescue responded, but Micciche refused emergency transport to a hospital. Instead, a cut to the little finger of Micciche’s left hand was bandaged and, later, healed without incident. However, Micciche claimed the incident caused diffuse and continuing problems with his left shoulder, specifically neuropathy, and aggravated a pre-existing injury to his back. For treatment, he underwent multiple cortisone and epidural injections to his back and shoulder. In December 2015, Micciche ultimately underwent back surgery to correct his pre-existing spinal stenosis, which he claimed was exacerbated by the incident and resulted in the need for the surgery. Micciche alleged that he has continued problems with his left shoulder and is recovering from his back surgery. Micciche was ultimately laid off from work. His treating physician, an expert in orthopedic surgery, asked a friend of his to help Micciche, and Micciche obtained sedentary work as a construction manager. However, he later stopped working after a few months, when the project was completed. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $1.47 million for Micciche’s past and future ongoing problems with his shoulder and aggravated back condition. According to defense counsel, plaintiff’s counsel never retained Micciche’s treating neurologist because the physician had records from when he treated Micciche before the accident, which allegedly indicated that Micciche had previous complaints of left shoulder pain. The defense’s expert neurologist opined that Micciche’s back and left shoulder conditions were both pre-existing and degenerative. The expert also opined that Micciche’s back issue would ultimately require surgery, as indicated in Micciche’s medical records since 1985. Defense counsel noted that Micciche’s expert orthopedic surgeon, who treated Micciche for years before the subject shock incident, opined that Micciche always needed back surgery and that the surgery that Micciche underwent was not causally related to the subject accident. Defense counsel also noted that the plaintiff’s treating physician had a letter in his file from as early as 1985, which indicated that Micciche would eventually require a back surgery in 18 to 20 years. However, the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgery expert testified that Micciche’s complaints of pain increased following the shock incident.