On July 11, 2011, plaintiff Michael Pander, 52, a mechanic, went to a backyard barbecue at the home of Donna Jones in Santa Cruz. Pander claimed that while in the backyard, he stepped into a 3-foot post hole that had been dug in preparation for the placement of a fence. As a result, Pander suffered a fracture to his left heel bone. Pander sued Jones, alleging the defendant failed to warn of the dangerous condition. Specifically, Pander contended that no warnings of the post holes were given to guests at the barbecue, and no signs or markers were placed near the area of the holes. Jones claimed that Pander was partially at fault for the accident by not returning to his motorcycle through the house and, instead, electing to walk on an unlit and unimproved portion of the property., Pander was taken home by a friend following the incident, as he was unable to ride his motorcycle due to pain in his left foot. He claimed he had originally hoped his foot would improve, but when it did not get better over the next two days, he was prompted to go to a hospital. He was ultimately diagnosed with three fractures of the heel’s calcaneus of his left foot. Pander claimed that his left foot now swells daily and that his mobility is permanently limited. He also claimed that he was out of work from the time of the accident until Jan. 1, 2012, but can now only work 30 hours a week, instead of 40, because of his condition. The plaintiff’s treating surgeon confirmed that Pander’s only surgical option is a subtalar joint fusion, which Pander is putting off since it would further limit his mobility. The surgeon also claimed that Pander will require hardware removal surgery and could also receive cortisone to treat the heel. Thus, Pander claimed $52,000 in damages for his past medical costs (post-Howell), $40,000 in damages for his past loss of earnings, in excess of $30,000 in damages for his future medical costs that would include the surgeries, and unspecified damages for his future loss of earnings. Defense counsel argued that Pander did not always work a full 40-hour work week prior to the accident, which would limit the plaintiff’s evaluation of his future loss of earnings. Defense counsel also questioned the nature and extent of Pander’s injury.