On Aug. 1, 2009, plaintiff Pinda Hall, 36, a real estate agent, was showing a property to clients at 5 Greene Pl., in Lafayette. When she arrived at the property, a pull-down stairway attic ladder was in a downward position. The ladder, which folded into the ceiling floor of the attic, was hinged and connected by metal brackets. However, while Hall was ascending the pull-down ladder, following her clients up to an attic-level “bonus room,” a hinge broke and the ladder failed, causing Hall to fall several feet to the ground. She subsequently sustained to one of her knees. Hall sued the owner of the foreclosed property, Aurora Loan Services LLC; the real estate agency selling the property, J. Rockliff Realtors; and the listing agents for the property, Jon Wood and Holly Sibley. Hall alleged that the property was dangerous, that the defendants had notice of the unsafe condition, and that the defendants failed to warn her about the condition. In 2013, the court granted defense counsel’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently appealed the court’s decision, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. Thereafter, Aurora Loan Services agreed to settle its claim with Hall for $25,000. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against J. Rockliff Realtors, Sibley and Wood. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that, months before the accident, a licensed contractor, Chris Trent, had inspected the house and made a list of required cosmetic and safety repairs. Counsel also contended that one of the listed items was “Stair–Remove and replace attic stair.” Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants knew, or should have reasonably known, that the pull-down stairs needed to be repaired and was not safe to use. The plaintiff’s technical expert, a general contractor, opined that the defendants intended to use the pull-down attic ladder as a stairway, that the pull-down ladder was not suitable for use as a stairway, and that the defendants’ use of the pull-down ladder as a stairway was a violation of various state building codes. The defendants denied notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Defense counsel argued that Hall, working within the course and scope of her employment, had an obligation to perform a reasonable inspection of the ladder and had a duty to detect the allegedly dangerous condition. However, at trial, Hall testified that she inspected the ladder before allowing her two prospective purchasers to ascend it and that she observed no problem in the process. Thus, defense counsel argued that Hall determined that the ladder was safe on her own accord and that Hall took the risk of climbing the ladder. The contractor who prepared the cosmetic/safety report testified that he observed no actual defect with the ladder and that the category in his report captioned “health & safety required repairs” was only a catch-all category for suggested changes and/or improvements to the property. The contractor also testified that his report was displayed on the kitchen counter for all to see, including Hall. Defense counsel noted that Hall’s husband even testified that he retrieved the contractor’s report from the counter after his wife’s fall. The defense’s real estate expert, a realtor, opined that Hall’s obligation to inspect, in the context of the subject case, was the same as the listing agents, Wood and Sibley. He opined that the evidence pointed to an unforeseeable, unfortunate accident through no fault of either party, noting Hall’s deposition testimony that the failure of the hinging mechanism was “sudden and unexpected.”, Later that day, Hall presented to a local hospital’s emergency room, where X-rays were taken and a tibial plateau fracture of the right knee was revealed. Hall subsequently addressed her injury with conservative treatment, including frequent physical therapy exercises on an outpatient basis. Hall claimed that despite treatment, her knee is constantly painful, causing her to walk with an impaired gait. She also claimed that she suffers from chronic knee and back pain. In addition, Hall claimed that she had to miss three months of work as a result of the accident. The plaintiff’s medical expert, an orthopedic surgeon, determined that Hall would potentially require two future knee replacement surgeries to her right knee. Thus, Hall sought recovery of $17,396.32 in stipulated past medical costs, $99,292 in past income loss, and $150,000 in future medical costs for the estimated cost of each future knee replacement. She also sought recovery of damages for her past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering. Hall’s husband, plaintiff Matthew Williams, filed a derivative claim seeking recovery for his loss of consortium. The defense’s medical expert, an orthopedic surgeon, disputed Hall’s alleged future care. He opined that Hall would only require an arthroscopic repair of her right knee and that Hall would not require any future knee replacement surgery.