On Jan. 15, 2014, plaintiff Reina Castro, 49, a security guard for Executive Assurance, a security guard company hired by ABC Studios, was working as a security guard on a set of the ABC television show “Criminal Minds.” Castro was standing near an entrance to the property in Sylmar when she opened a 21-foot-long, horizontal, rolling gate to prevent it from closing on a truck that was exiting. However, the gate fell on her, causing to her left knee. Castro sued ABC Studios; ABC Inc. (which was doing business as Disney/ABC Television Group); and the owners of the property, Deok Yong Douglas Bang (also known as Douglas Bang) and Ki Sook Sarah Bang (who was doing business as Casa Food Mart). Castro alleged that the Bangs failed to properly repair and/or maintain the gate, creating a dangerous condition, and that ABC Studios and ABC Inc. failed to inspect the condition of the gate. The Bangs had some insurance, but ABC had issued an additional-insured endorsement to the Bangs before coming on the property to film. However, when the Bangs tendered to ABC, its carrier denied coverage. The Bangs then tendered to their own carrier, but it also initially denied coverage. ABC also tendered to Castro’s employer, Executive Assurance, claiming indemnity. As a result, the insurance carrier for Executive Assurance stepped in and offered a defense to ABC under a reservation of rights. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the Bangs had performed maintenance on other gates on the property and had installed statutorily-required gate stops on those gate after the construction of the gate, but before the incident in question. However, counsel argued that the Bangs were negligent for failing to maintain the subject gate with required gate stops. Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that ABC was negligent for failing to inspect the gate, as ABC had indicated in their Location Manager’s Safety Inspection Form, which was filled out prior to shooting the scene on-site, that it had inspected the gate. The plaintiff’s safety expert opined that the Bangs were negligent for failing to maintain their property to the requisite standard of care. The expert also opined that ABC failed to properly inspect the gate in question, even though it was planning on using the gate. The Bangs claimed they never used the gate that fell, so it was essentially a fence, not a gate. However, in response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that wear to the rollers of the gate disputed the Bangs’ claim and that, moreover, even if it was not being used, the gate must be up to code, as someone may use it at some time (such as emergency personnel). Approximately two days before the case went to the jury, Judge H. Chester Horn Jr. granted ABC’s counsel’s motion for non-suit under the Privette Doctrine. According to plaintiff’s counsel, Horn apparently concluded that ABC had hired the security guard company, Executive Assurance, to perform gate inspections on the property and, therefore, relieved itself of that duty. However, plaintiff’s counsel claimed that Horn made that conclusion even though all of the evidence pointed directly in the opposite direction. Regardless, ABC Studios and ABC Inc. were out of the case, and the matter continued against the Bangs only., Castro sustained a crushed tibial plateau of her left leg/knee, a comminuted fracture of the left proximal humerus, an avulsion tear of the anterior cruciate ligament, and a peripheral tear of the lateral meniscus in the left knee. She was subsequently taken to a hospital immediately after the incident and then treated her over the next three years, including undergoing five surgical procedures in an attempt to reconstruct the left knee. When those attempts failed, Castro underwent a sixth surgery, a total knee replacement, in 2017, two months before trial. Castro is Salvadoran and spoke very little English, so she testified in Spanish at trial. Castro claimed that her past medical treatment was completed entirely throughout workers’ compensation and totaled $371,591. She also claimed she could not work again, as opined by her vocational experts. The plaintiff’s life care planning expert testified that Castro’s future included daily care, physical therapy, revisionary surgeries, and daily assistance with a driver and an aid. Thus, Castro sought recovery of $371,591 for past medical costs, $3,246,943 for future medical costs, $350,000 for future loss of earnings, and an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Castro could complete more sedentary work after rehabilitation. The defense’s expert neuropsychiatrist testified about the presence of pre-morbid stressors, as Castro allegedly had a very tough childhood, in an attempt to disprove Castro’s alleged general damages.