On June 3, 2010, plaintiff Arthur King, 77, retiree, went with his wife to the Lebec Transfer Facility to dispose of some metal shelving units. At the site, customers were instructed to dispose of their waste by driving onto a “tipping pad,” which is a large, elevated, concrete pad that is divided into bays. Customers were directed to back their vehicle into a bay and then dispose of their waste either directly into a bin or onto the platform. The northern most edge of the pad drops off into bins, with a drop greater than four feet. On this date, King was directed by a Lebec employee to back his vehicle into one of the bays, approximately six to eight feet from the edge of the platform. King then exited the vehicle and was in the process of pulling shelving units out of the bed of his pickup truck when he stepped off the edge and fell into a bin below. King sued the owner of the Lebec Transfer Facility, the county of Kern. He alleged that the county failed to properly repair and/or maintain the platform, creating a dangerous condition of public property. Both parties waived their right to a jury, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. King’s counsel noted that the county engineer that designed the facility testified that the original design called for the installation of safety chains and bollards along the northern edge of the platform, near the drop off. The bollards were designed to be removable and the county engineer testified that their purpose was to prevent people and objects from falling off the edge. King’s counsel contended that the platform was built with the bollards and chains in place, but sometime thereafter they were removed by the county and never replaced. The plaintiff’s engineering and safety expert testified that the unguarded edge of the platform created a fall risk and that some protections were necessary. Counsel also noted evidence at trial that showed that a substantially similar fall had occurred on the tipping pad only six months before the subject accident. The county’s counsel contended that there was no dangerous condition and that King was entirely at fault for his fall. Counsel also contended that the county was entitled to design immunity, since bollards were always intended by design to be removed and/or remodeled at the discretion of the operator. In addition, the defense’s engineering and safety expert testified that the original design, with the safety chains and bollards, created a fall or tripping risk and that the facility was made safer with their removal., King fractured his skull and left ankle, as well as lacerated his head in the fall. He was subsequently taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and brought to an emergency room. King required both internal and external fixation of his left ankle within days of the fall. His head laceration was also closed with sutures. King claimed that he recovered completely from his skull fracture, but that he still experiences pain in his left ankle with prolonged walking or standing, or when he walks on uneven surfaces. He also claimed that he has started using a cane and that he has difficulty maintaining his property since the fall. Thus, King stipulated to $52,969.61 in damages for his past medical costs. He also sought further recovery of unspecified damages for his past and future pain and suffering. The county’s counsel stipulated to King’s past medical costs, but disputed his claim of ongoing disability. However, neither party presented any witness testimony from a medical expert at trial.