At around 7 p.m. on June 18, 2011, plaintiff Davida Taurek, 45, a self-employed theater and dance instructor and therapist, was attending a private birthday party at Martin Sacks’ residence, which was located at 362 Edgewood Avenue in Mill Valley. Sacks had an acre of land on the property that included a redwood grove with a hill swing located adjacent to it. Sacks previously hired an arborist to install the hill swing adjacent to the redwood grove in December 2006, and another arborist assisted with the installation. Thus, the swing was installed on a hillside with 40-foot-long ropes attached to two redwood trees. At its furthest point, above the gorge when swinging, it extended about 50-feet above the ground. The swing had a wooden bench with one hole on each side that attached it to the ropes. However, after the swing was installed, Sacks lowered it from 54-inches, where it hung at its point of rest, to 42-inches. In addition, when Sacks lowered the swing, he also changed the stopper knot from a wide double fisherman’s knot to a narrower overhand knot. On the night of the party, Taurek wanted to sit and enjoy the view with her friend. As a result, Taurek’s friend mounted the swing at its resting point to just sit on the bench. However, when Taurek later attempted to mount the swing at its point of rest because she did not intend to swing on it, she fell and injured her neck. Taurek sued Sacks, alleging that Sacks was negligent in the installation of the hill swing, creating a dangerous condition. Deva Braden, an arborist, was at one time named as a defendant, but she was ultimately dismissed from the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the installers of the hill swing were critical of Sacks for lowering the swing by approximately one foot because it allowed individuals to attempt to mount it at its resting point instead of pulling it up to where it was as close as 26 inches off the ground, where it could be easily mounted. The plaintiff’s safety expert testified that lowering the swing made it unsafe because it invited people to believe that they could mount the swing at its point of rest, despite that it was too high to safely mount it there. The installers and the plaintiff’s swing and playground expert further opined that Sacks’ knot change increased the instability of the swing. In addition, the plaintiff’s safety expert and engineer testified that the design of the hill swing was unsafe in comparison to other types of swings, since it only had one hole on each side for the bench to attach to the rope. The expert opined that a safer design would have been to have two holes on each side, which would have increased the stability of the swing and is the preferred design in the industry. Both safety experts also testified that the subject swing was unsafe because it did not comply with product safety standards for swings, in that it was above hard, unleveled ground that was without any impact absorbing material. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Sacks saw Taurek go to the swing with her friend shortly before the fall, but that Sacks failed to tell Taurek how to use the swing. Thus, counsel argued that Sacks’ actions showed a breach of a duty to warn/instruct. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the rope above the bench was connected by carabineers, making the swing bench removable. Thus, counsel argued that the swing bench should have been removed to prevent inexperienced individuals from using it at the party without proper instruction. Sacks’ counsel argued that the lowering of the swing did not create a hazard because Taurek could have pulled the swing uphill, reducing the distance to 26-inches, to easily mount it. Counsel, relying upon the testimony of the defense’s expert engineer, also argued that the stopper knot change did not reduce the stability of the swing. The expert opined that the knot change did not significantly affect the contact point between the knots and the bench, so there was no effect on the stability of the swing. Defense counsel further argued that the single hole on each side of the bench was the standard for tree swings, as testified to by the installer. Counsel contended that the consumer product safety standards for level ground and impact absorbing materials applied to playground equipment for children, which was inapplicable to the subject family swing and Taurek. Defense counsel added that Sacks was present at the party and had instructed the first users of the swing that they should pull it up the hill to mount it, but contended that Taurek was not present at that time. Counsel further noted that Taurek had never been to the property before and that Taurek did not ask Sacks how to mount or use the swing prior to attempting to sit on it. Thus, defense counsel argued that Taurek had assumed the risk of an injury when she attempted to mount the swing and that Taurek fell because she did not properly hold onto the ropes., Taurek suffered a severe fracture and dislocation of the C5 and C6 vertebrae. She was subsequently transported by ambulance to the Emergency Department at Marin General Hospital, in Greenbrae. Taurek required an emergency cervical discectomy and fusion. The severity of the fracture required a two-part, 360-degree cervical spine stabilization and fusion surgery with the installation of hardware that involved two plates; one plate for the front of the vertebrae and one for the back. The surgery was performed at Marin General Hospital by the plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon and required a nine-day hospital admission. After her release from the hospital, Taurek wore a hard cervical collar and was unable to self-care. As a result, she moved in with her aunt, who provided care to Taurek for approximately six months. Taurek also received follow-up physical therapy and counseling. Taurek complained of permanent reduction of the range of motion in her neck, as well as pain in the left arm and shoulder. According to the plaintiff’s physical medicine expert, Taurek requires continuing physical therapy and treatment throughout her remaining life time. Taurek is also at increased risk to develop degeneration in the adjacent cervical vertebrae because of the presence of the plates. Thus, Taurek sought recovery of $243,364.39 in paid medical costs and approximately $35,000 in lost wages. She also sought recovery of future medical costs, and damages for her past and future pain and suffering.