On June 5, 2006, plaintiff Chenel Maugh, 32, a retail clerk who was not working at the time, was about to enter a recreational vehicle located on a sales lot owned by La Mesa RV Center Inc. when the salesman closed a glass panel door for the electrical power, located above the RV entrance, resulting in the glass panel falling 3 feet and striking Maugh on the top of her head. La Mesa RV claimed that the glass panel shattered as the salesman was closing the door, causing eraser-sized pieces of safety glass to rain down upon Maugh’s head. Maugh sued La Mesa RV Center Inc. and the manufacturer of the RV, Coachman Recreational Vehicle Company LLC. She alleged that La Mesa RV was negligent in the maintenance of the RV and that Coachman was negligent in the manufacturing of the vehicle. La Mesa RV subsequently cross-complained against Atwood Mobile Products, the component parts manufacturer. However, the cross-complaint was later dismissed prior to trial. Shortly after the commencement of trial, Maugh allegedly withdrew her products liability claim. As a result, the case only continued against La Mesa RV on a theory of res ipsa loquitor, which allowed Coachman to settle for $1,000, as it had no control over the RV after delivery. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against La Mesa RV only and the jury was instructed on res ipsa loquitor. Maugh claimed that she entered the RV at the request of the salesman as he swung the glass panel door closed too heavily and that even though the salesman tried to catch the door, the glass panel shattered. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that La Mesa RV was liable for the salesman’s negligence in closing the glass panel too hard and in failing to follow the sales protocol of keeping the customer out of the RV before he had turned on the electrical power to the vehicle, which had the power control located behind the glass panel. Counsel also introduced evidence in the form of service orders from before the incident, indicating that the RV had numerous maintenance problems. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that La Mesa RV’s employees threw away all the glass and hinges after the accident, even though they knew that Maugh was injured. La Mesa RV denied liability and claimed that Coachmen, if any entity, was liable. The salesman testified that the glass panel shattered for some unknown reason as he was closing the panel with his fingertips., Maugh was struck in the head by pieces of safety glass, resulting in a laceration to her head. She also claimed she was dazed, confused and had a headache immediately after the incident. Maugh was subsequently treated at an emergency room on the night of the incident and had 21 chiropractic sessions for her alleged headaches, neck pain, back pain and limitation of motion in her neck and back. Her chiropractor then referred her to a neurologist, who diagnosed Maugh with a concussion, post-concussive syndrome and depression. The neurologist then referred Maugh to a neuropsychologist for psychometric testing. The neuropsychologist diagnosed Maugh with an acute anxiety reaction that allegedly aggravated Maugh’s pre-existing personality disorder. Maugh claimed that her soft brain injury, and resulting headaches and neck pain, led to the dissolution of relationships, including estrangement from her fiancé and her fiancé’s children. Maugh did not seek economic damages, as she was not working at the time of the accident, but only sought recovery of general damages for her past and future pain and suffering, and past and future emotional distress. Defense counsel contended that Maugh’s alleged “soft brain injury” was physically impossible based upon the three-sixteenth-inch scratch on her head, the size and weight of the panel, and biomechanical analysis and testing. Counsel also noted that Maugh had four prior automobile accidents in the past six years, with four other lawsuits, ER visits, medical treatment and the like.