On Nov. 16, 2009, at approximately 5:15 p.m., plaintiff Luis Marquez, 48, a janitor employed by Able Building Maintenance Co., was depositing recycling materials in a recycling compactor, as part of his work at the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. building in San Francisco, when he slipped and fell on a piece of cardboard, which had hydraulic fluid that had leaked from the compactor underneath it. The subject recycling compactor was previously sold by Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling Co. to PG&E in 1995, but Golden Gate Disposal continued to maintain the machine on a contractual basis through 2001, when it declared bankruptcy. From that point on, Golden Gate Disposal only serviced the compactor on a pre-authorized basis at the request of PG&E. In 2008, Industrial Crew LLC began subcontracting for Golden Gate Disposal, and its work included servicing the subject compactor. Marquez claimed that when he slipped due the hydraulic fluid that had leaked, he landed awkwardly on his walkie-talkie, which was situated on his hip/lower back. He claimed that as a result, he sustained serious to his neck and back. Thus, Marquez sued Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling Co., and Industrial Crew LLC. Marquez alleged that the defendants were negligent in their failure to properly maintain the recycling compactor, creating a dangerous condition. Marquez’s counsel contended that the recycling compactor was supposed to retain hydraulic fluid, but that it was later discovered to have holes in the floor, causing it to leak the fluid. Counsel argued that the compactor wore down due to wear and tear and that it was negligently maintained due to PG&E only contacting Golden Gate Disposal to service the machine when it wasn’t operational, in that there were no measures taken to maintain the safety of the compactor. Counsel further argued that PG&E had notice of the compactor leaking on several occasions, but that it failed to take any remedial action. Golden Gate Disposal and Industrial Crew claimed that they were only responsible for servicing the compactor to make it operational. However, they claimed that they each warned PG&E about the compactor leaking, but that PG&E ignored the information. Golden Gate Disposal and Industrial Crew ultimately agreed to $500,000 total settlement, of which Marquez received $450,000 and his wife received $50,000. The matter then continued against PG&E only. PG&E claimed that it relied on Golden Gate Disposal to fully maintain the subject compactor, as well as relied on Marquez’s employer, Able Building Maintenance Co., to report any issues with the machine. It also claimed that Marquez was inattentive and negligent when approaching the compactor and stepping on the cardboard, making Marquez at fault for the accident., Marquez was taken by ambulance to an emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a herniated disc at L4-5 and a protruding disc at C5-6. He subsequently received various conservative treatments consisting of physical therapy, water therapy, steroid injections, facet joint injections and pain medication. On May 3, 2011, Marquez underwent a prosthetic disc replacement at L4-5 and a fusion at L5-S1 the following day. However, when he continued to complain of increasing pain symptoms in his lower back, Marquez underwent a removal of the prosthetic disc at L4-5 on May 13, 2013, and underwent a fusion at L4-5 the following day. He then continued to receive physical therapy and pain medication since the surgery. Marquez claimed he regularly uses a wheelchair due to his reduced mobility, which has been worsened by permanent nerve damage in the form of radiculopathy to his lower extremities. He alleged that as a result, he is now prohibited from activities like bike riding, playing and coaching soccer with his children, and other physical activities. He also alleged he hasn’t returned to work since the accident and cannot return due to his permanent condition. In addition, Marquez claimed he will require another fusion at L3-4 due to the wear on his lumbar spine, as well as either an artificial disc replacement or fusion at C5-6. Thus, Marquez sought recovery of $394,136.26 in past medical costs, roughly $3.7 million in future medical costs/life care planning, $225,662 in past lost earnings and $513,884 in future lost earnings. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Marquez’s wife, Norma Meza, claimed her family life has been affected by the loss of her husband’s household services, as well as the loss of his care, comfort and society. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium. Marquez’s worker’s compensation carrier, Zurich North America, filed an intervening complaint, seeking reimbursement for paid worker’s compensation benefits. However, the claim was later dismissed. Thus, it did not participate at trial. Counsel for PG&E argued that Marquez was not permanently injured in the slip-and-fall accident. Instead, counsel argued that Marquez’s current condition was due to pre-existing caused by motor vehicle accidents occurring in 1992 and 1999, which Marquez failed to disclose to his treating physicians and which Marquez sought chiropractic treatment following each accident. In addition, PG&E’s counsel argued that Marquez should be able to return to work, in that Marquez had other future employment options.