On Jan. 22, 2013, at approximately 8 a.m., plaintiff Sherryl Shirran, 74, an antique doll dealer, was walking with her husband along South Courson Drive in Anaheim when she tripped and fell on an elevated part of the sidewalk. She subsequently fractured her right shoulder. Shirran sued the city of Anaheim, alleging that the defendant negligently maintained the sidewalk, creating a dangerous condition of public property, and that the defendant had notice of said condition. Shirran claimed a nearby, uprooted tree caused a two-inch elevation in the sidewalk, which was obscured by leaves and caused her to trip over it. She also claimed she complained about the subject sidewalk area to the city roughly one year before the incident, but the city failed to remedy the situation. The city’s counsel contended that Shirran lived very close to where the accident occurred and that it was the same route she had used for her daily walk with her husband for several years. It also contended that Shirran and her husband had warned each other about the uplift in the sidewalk on numerous occasions before the incident and that Shirran had a documented history of several trip and falls in the past 20 years, including one on the sidewalk almost directly across the street from the subject location. Thus, the city’s counsel asserted that Shirran bore a significant share of responsibility for the accident, in that Shirran failed to exercise due care and caution while traveling on the sidewalk., Shirran’s sustained a fracture of her right shoulder. Her husband subsequently took her to an emergency room, where she underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery the following day. Shirran then followed up with roughly three months of physical therapy and then treated with home exercise care. Shirran claimed she also suffered a fracture of the second metatarsal in her left foot, but it wasn’t diagnosed until roughly one year after the accident. She then treated her foot injury with a podiatrist. Shirran claimed she still experiences residual pain and decreased range of motion in her right shoulder, restricting her ability to elevate her arm above her shoulder. She also claimed residual pain in her left foot with the possibility of future surgery. She further claimed that her caused her to be unable to go to doll shows for six months following the incident. Thus, Shirran sought recovery of $14,000 in past medical costs and $8,000 in past loss of earnings. She also sought recovery of damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel did not dispute Shirran’s shoulder fracture, but asserted that Shirran did not require surgery. Counsel also asserted that Shirran’s claim that she fractured her foot in the accident was speculative, noting that Shirran did not complain about her foot until almost a year after the subject incident and that Shirran had documented pre-existing foot conditions. The city’s counsel disputed Shirran’s loss-of-earnings claim, asserting that Shirran’s lost income, with respect to her antique doll business, was speculative and more properly classified as a hobby. Counsel contended that Shirran’s method of calculating her damages was improper, asserting that Shirran’s profits decreased significantly in the years leading up to the incident, that the bulk of Shirran’s profits were due to a one-time non-recurrent situation, and that Shirran was spending more on her business than she was taking in. Additionally, defense counsel contended that Shirran failed to mitigate her damages, asserting that Shirran had a significant amount of inventory with little to no efforts to sell.