On Aug. 10, 2016, plaintiff Louis Acosta, 40, a lighting technician, was assigned to check the exterior lights of Arlington Plaza, a strip mall in Riverside. As part of his assignment, Acosta needed to access the rooftop of one of the buildings, called "Pad A." He proceeded to climb the ladder to the roof, push the hatch door open and maneuver the locking lever into position. While he was in the process of exiting the hatch door, his tool belt became caught on the hatch door’s locking lever, causing the door to slam onto his back. Acosta claimed to his neck, lower back and right shoulder. He was able to open the hatch door and free himself. Upon examination, he realized that the door was missing a spring assist, which caused the door to slam down as opposed to gently dropping. Acosta sued the property manager, Athena Management Inc.; the company that was asked to inspect all the rooftops at Arlington Plaza, The Roof Depot Inc.; and three real estate companies believed to own Arlington Plaza, MAS Realty LLC, 3D Investments, LLC and CBRE Inc. Acosta alleged that the defendants were negligent in the repair and/or maintenance of the premises, creating a dangerous condition, and that the defendants were also negligent for failing to warn of the dangerous condition. MAS Realty and Athena Management filed a third-party claim against Acosta’s employer, Horizon Lighting Inc., based on an express indemnity agreement. However, the third-party complaint was severed before trial and will be tried separately. The Roof Depot reached a settlement agreement with Acosta, and Judge Mark Mooney granted a motion for a good faith settlement one week before trial. Thus, Roof Depot was let out of the case. In addition, it was determined that MAS Realty was the owner of Pad A at Arlington Plaza at the time of the incident. As a result, 3D Investments and CBRE were let out of the case. The matter continued with Acota’s claims against MAS Realty and Athena Management only. The case proceeded under an exception to the Privette doctrine, based on the case of "Kinsman v. Unocal Corp." Under that exception, the owner/controller of a premises may be held liable for to an independent contractor’s employee if the owner/controller knew or reasonably should have known of a concealed dangerous condition on the property; the independent contractor could not have known or reasonably could not have known about the condition; the owner/controller failed to warn the independent contractor of the condition; the employee was harmed; and the conduct of the owner/controller was a substantial factor in causing the employee’s harm. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that MAS Realty and Athena Management both asked the Roof Depot to inspect all the rooftops at Arlington Plaza in August 2014 and that, in a report sent to Athena Management on Sept. 9, 2014, the Roof Depot noted that the hatch door leading to the rooftop of Pad A was broken and that the spring was missing, making the door "heavy and dangerous to operate." Counsel also contended that the Roof Depot recommended repairing the entire hatch door for $3,150 and that Athena Management acknowledged the email and included the cost of the hatch door repair in the December 2015 budget. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the hatch door was not repaired in December 2015 and that, instead, the repairs were rescheduled for December 2016. Defense counsel maintained throughout litigation that the hatch door was not dangerous and that MAS Realty and Athena Management did not know that the hatch door was broken. Counsel also maintained that MAS Realty and Athena Management were not responsible for the incident and, instead, argued that Acosta, Acosta’s employer (Horizon Lighting) and the Roof Depot were at fault. Defense counsel argued that Acosta failed to pay attention to his surroundings and caused the hatch door to fall, as it was Acosta’s tool belt that disengaged the lever. Counsel also argued that Horizon Lighting failed to properly train Acosta on how to access rooftops and climb ladders and that Horizon Lighting failed to properly inspect the area. Counsel further argued that the Roof Depot failed to repair the hatch door when asked to do so. In addition, defense counsel argued that MAS Realty and Athena Management did warn Acosta and Acosta’s employer of the dangerous condition, as a handwritten note was present on the wall behind the ladder that read, "Hatch broken! Watch fingers and head!" Thus, during opening and closing arguments, defense counsel asked the jury to find in favor of MAS Realty and Athena Management, and render a full defense verdict., Acosta claimed he sustained herniated discs at the C5-6, C6-7 and L4-5 levels. He also claimed he suffers from impingement syndrome and acromioclavicular degenerative joint disease to his right, dominant shoulder as a result of the accident. Acosta claimed that he continued to work for a few hours after the incident, but eventually presented to a doctor when the pain and numbness continued in his extremities and back. He ultimately underwent a cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-6 and C6-7 on Aug. 3, 2020. He then underwent a lumbar decompression and fusion at L4-5 on Feb. 8, 2021. In addition, Acosta’s physicians recommended that Acosta undergo a shoulder surgery. Acosta’s treating neurosurgeon opined that Acosta will suffer from adjacent segment disease in both his cervical and lumbar spine. The expert indicated that as a result of Acosta’s condition, Acosta will need future surgeries at the adjacent levels in his spine. Acosta claimed that as a result of his , he could not return to work in the same capacity and that he ultimately stopped working completely in October 2016. Acosta’s economics expert estimated that Acosta will lose between approximately $1.2 million and $2.2 million in future lost earnings. Acosta also claimed that he had to move back home with his parents, as he was unable to pay his rent. Acosta sought recovery of approximately $631,000 in past medical costs, approximately $450,000 in future medical costs, approximately $260,000 in past lost earnings, and approximately $1.2 million to $2.2 million in future lost earnings. He also sought recovery of noneconomic damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed the nature and extent of Acosta’s alleged . The defense’s billing expert disputed the amount of past medical costs alleged by Acosta. As a result, the expert opined that Acosta’s medical bills should be reduced by two thirds, from approximately $631,000 to $200,000. The defense’s vocational rehabilitation expert suggested that Acosta could return to work in a position that was better than the one he had left and that Acosta could make more money in that new position, thereby having no future lost earnings.