On Jan. 2, 2008, plaintiff Bong Kim, an owner of a dry cleaning business in his 40s, went to a 7-Eleven next door to buy some coffee when he tripped and fell. He claimed an exacerbation of a pre-existing right hip and leg injury. Kim sued 7-Eleven’s operator, Andy’s Beach Market Inc. He alleged the defendant negligently maintained its premises, creating a dangerous condition. Kim claimed he tripped and fell over the store’s entrance mat. The plaintiff’s biomechanical expert testified that the subject entrance mat was dilapidated, and caused the trip and fall accident. Plaintiff’s counsel presented pictures of the mat as evidence at trial. Defense counsel argued that the mat was not a dangerous condition and that Kim did not know how he fell at the time of the accident. Andy’s Beach Market claimed that Kim wasn’t sure if it was the mat or the metal threshold at the entrance that caused his fall, and that his own negligence caused the accident., Kim was carried back to work by family members after the accident, and presented to his orthopedist later in the day. He claimed he exacerbated a pre-existing right hip injury, for which previously underwent a hip replacement surgery in 2006. His orthopedist claimed that Kim also sustained a new hairline fracture, requiring the plaintiff to undergo surgery to lengthen his right leg in 2010. The plaintiff’s orthopedist testified that Kim’s original hip replacement was supposed to last 20 years, but that the subject accident caused a reinjury, requiring a new surgery and eventually a total replacement procedure. Kim claimed he was totally disabled during the first two years after the subject accident and that while his condition has improved since surgery, he is still limited in his mobility and can no longer go jogging and do other sports. He alleged he missed work, but did not seek lost earnings for his family business. Thus, Kim sought recovery of $51,802.47 in damages for his past medical costs, and sought an unspecified amount of damages for his future medical costs that include a hip replacement, and for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Kim’s surgery was unreasonable and unrelated to the subject accident, as was his need for a future hip replacement. Counsel argued that the plaintiff’s alleged injury and all associated medical bills were due to his pre-existing hip condition, and not from the fall. Defense counsel further argued that Kim’s original hip replacement was defective and that the plaintiff would require future surgery even if the accident did not occur.