On April 23, 2013, plaintiff Kelli Payton, 40, a bakery vendor, was making her weekly bread delivery to the kitchen of Hollywood Café, in Lodi. As she walked through the swinging, aluminum, kitchen door, she fell into a hole in the kitchen floor. Prior to Payton’s fall, Hollywood Café leased a Point of Sale system from Leapset, which hired Installation and Services Technologies Inc. (IST) to install it. In order to run wires for the system, the IST installer needed to access the subfloor crawl space, so Hollywood Café allegedly directed the installer to a trapdoor located just inside the kitchen. However, the resulting opening in the floor was within the swing of the swinging, aluminum, kitchen door that Payton entered through. As a result, Payton fell through the open trapdoor and allegedly sustained to her lower back, a shin, and a thigh. Payton sued the operator of Hollywood Café, Darlene Machado, and Installation and Services Technologies Inc. Payton alleged that the defendants failed to warn of the open trapdoor, creating a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the opening in the floor was left uncovered, unguarded, and unattended and that no attempt to warn was made. Thus, counsel argued that Machado had a non-delegable duty to guard, cover or attend to an open hole in the floor and that Machado was negligent per se by violating California Code of Regulations, title 8, § 3212(a)(1), for failing to guard, cover or attend to the open hole. Counsel further argued that Machado knew or should have known about the opening in the floor, and failed to timely remedy it or warn of the condition. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that IST was also negligent per se by violating California Code of Regulations, title 8, § 3212(a)(1) for failing to guard, cover, or attend to an open hole in the floor. Machado claimed that IST was solely responsible for Payton’s fall. Defense counsel for IST contended that Machado and/or his employees failed to warn Payton that work was being performed in the kitchen, specifically since the manager saw Payton in the parking lot before she entered the restaurant., Payton claimed that she sustained a sprain and strain of her lower back (lumbar spine), a shin abrasion, a thigh contusion, and a sacroiliac joint dysfunction. She subsequently presented to a medical clinic in Stockton the next day. Payton claimed that when the pain from the lower back sprain/strain became chronic, she treated the condition with epidural steroid injections, facet joint injections, and sacroiliac joint injections. Payton alleged that the she had minimal benefit from the injections and that she continues to treat her lower back condition. However, she claimed that the injections helped her enough to be able to return to work and that worked on-and-off until 2016, when she returned to work full time. She also claimed that uses Flector patches, and occasionally acetaminophen and/or hydrocodone, to treat flare-ups. The plaintiff’s treating physicians testified that Payton’s condition would be indefinite and that Payton’s life care plan included quarterly injections for 39 years. Thus, Payton sought recovery of $16,170 in past medical costs (which was paid by her workers’ compensation insurance), $588,806 in future medical costs, $61,500 in past lost income, $300,000 in non-economic damages for her past pain and suffering, and $3.9 million in non-economic damages for her future pain and suffering. Her husband, plaintiff Troy Payton, 44, a head grocery clerk, sought recovery of $30,000 for his past loss of consortium and $390,000 for his future loss of consortium. Defense counsel disputed causation and the extent of Ms. Payton’s alleged . Counsel contended that Ms. Payton should have healed within three to six months. Defense counsel for Machado noted that on Jan. 10, 2014, Payton told her doctor that the previous injection worked extremely well, with 100-percent relief, but that a few weeks later, when Payton was driving her route, the pain returned, even though Payton did nothing different physically. Thus, counsel argued that Payton suffered a new, distinct injury and that any treatment after January 2014 was unrelated to the subject accident.