On Nov. 17, 2012, plaintiff Jan Gilbrecht, 58, a union organizer for the National Union of Healthcare Workers, was staying at the house of her brother, Aric Gilbrecht, in Cupertino, in order to assist in caring for her brother’s two young children for a few days while his wife was out of town dealing with a medical emergency involving her father. At around 8:30 a.m., Ms. Gilbrecht exited the side door of her brother’s house and entered the yard with the intention of walking her dog from the side yard to the front public sidewalk, and then walking her dog around the neighborhood. The rear and side yard were elevated, and there was a short stairway that included three wooden steps, approximately five feet in width, descending to the ground level of the front yard and driveway. The side yard area also had a shed and various things stored there, including car parts and an engine. In addition, Mr. Gilbrecht had previously built a homemade ramp that he had placed on the steps, primarily for use of his wheelbarrow in gardening. The ramp was built by attaching two wooden planks together, and it was approximately 22 inches in width. It also sloped downward from the top level at the side yard to the front yard. As Ms. Gilbrecht exited the side door of her brother’s house, it was raining lightly, allegedly causing her to slip and fall as she stepped onto the ramp. Ms. Gilbrecht claimed to her left ankle. Ms. Gilbrecht sued Mr. Gilbrecht, alleging that her brother negligently maintained his property, creating a dangerous condition. Ms. Gilbrecht claimed that the steps on the side of her brother’s house had debris on them, including car machine parts, and that the bottom of steps had a steel plate with a wooden board on top of it with some oil on it. She alleged that she had not used the ramp before the incident. However, she claimed that she walked on the ramp, which was located on the right side of the steps as she descended, because the steps did not have a clear passageway for her to enter the front yard. Thus, Ms. Gilbrecht claimed that the ramp was a dangerous and unsafe. The plaintiff’s expert mechanical and safety engineer testified that the slope of the ramp was approximately 16 percent, which was undisputed, and that a safe slope would have been eight percent under the Architectural Graphics Standards. He further testified that maximum slope allowed under the applicable Uniform Building Code was 12.5 percent, as a minimum standard. Thus, according to plaintiff’s expert, the ramp did not comply with the building code. The expert further testified that the ramp was dangerous because it was “slippery,” as defined in the Uniform Building Code, because of the wet and worn wood surface. The mechanical and safety engineer opined that the ramp should have had slip-resistant wood treatment or non-slip/friction tape and that the lack of those things also caused the ramp to not comply with the building code. In addition, the ramp and steps did not have a handrail. As pertaining to the steps, the expert testified that they were uneven and the height differential was too great to comply with the building code. People had also used the ramp to walk on before the incident to enter and exit the house and property without a wheelbarrow, so the expert opined that it was part of the egress. Defense counsel argued that the ramp was safe for its purpose of use as a wheelbarrow ramp. Counsel also argued that it did not have to comply with the applicable building code because it was not part of the egress and the intent was to use it for the wheelbarrow. Defense counsel further argued that the surface of the ramp was not slippery because the wood had a rough surface. In addition, counsel argued that the steps were compliant under the Uniform Building Code because the height differential in the treads was, in part, due to the uneven surface at the bottom of the steps. The defense’s engineering expert admitted that the steps and ramp could be used as part of the egress to exit the house from the rear and side entrances. However, he testified that the ramp was designed and primarily used for Mr. Gilbrecht’s wheelbarrow to work in the garden area of the side yard and that the steps had a reasonably clear way to descend on the left side to avoid the ramp. In addition, the defense’s expert engineer was critical of the plaintiff’s expert, as the plaintiff’s expert did not actually inspect the property or ramp., After falling, Ms. Gilbrecht yelled out and was assisted by her brother’s wife, who had arrived home the prior evening. Her brother’s wife also called for an ambulance when she saw Ms. Gilbrecht sitting at the bottom of the ramp with her left ankle in a twisted position. Ms. Gilbrecht was then transported by ambulance to the Emergency Department at El Camino Hospital, in Mountain View. An X-ray of the left ankle showed a bimalleolar fracture with lateral dislocation and angulation. Her ankle was subsequently placed in a splint, and she was prescribed pain medication. An orthopedic surgeon also performed a surgical consultation of Ms. Gilbrecht in the Emergency Department, recommended surgery, and admitted Ms. Gilbrecht to the hospital. The surgeon ultimately performed an open reduction and internal fixation of the left ankle on that same date. During the procedure, the physician inserted a side plate with screws to treat the distal fibular fracture and a screw to reduce the medial malleolus fracture. Ms. Gilbrecht was discharged three days later, on Nov. 20, 2012. During her recovery, it was discovered that Ms. Gilbrecht had a non-union of the medial malleolus. She eventually had the plate and screw removed during a surgical procedure performed by her treating surgical podiatrist on March 25, 2015. The expert also performed an open reduction and internal fixation of the left medial colliculus to treat the nonunion. In addition, the treating expert podiatrist performed a talonavicular arthrodesis involving two screws together with the gastrocnemius recession to correct Ms. Gilbrecht’s left flat foot, which was alleged to be related to the initial injury, as it had developed after the first surgical treatment and nonunion. Ms. Gilbrecht claimed that she had continuing problems with her left foot and ankle area, including pain and numbness in the foot. As a result, she saw another physician to get a second opinion and the physician recommended the removal of the two screws in the talonavicular joint area. Thus, on Nov. 10, 2015, the physician surgically removed the screws. However, Ms. Gilbrecht claimed that she developed some continued tenderness in the talonavicular area and the peroneal nerve. The physician subsequently treated the condition with two steroid injections into March 2016, but without success. Ms. Gilbrecht claimed that as a result, she was diagnosed with permanent peroneal nerve damage. Ms. Gilbrecht was off of work for approximately two years, though not continuously, after her fall. She claimed that she was unable to walk during her recuperation and that she could not walk for significant distances or stand for long periods of time because she would have pain and swelling. She also claimed that she can no longer hike or walk on sloped surfaces and that she still has difficulty standing for significant times. She claimed that as a result, she has not been released to full duties. Thus, Ms. Gilbrecht sought recovery of $151,405.68 in medical costs, approximately $142,170 in lost wages, and approximately $500,000 in damages for her past and future pain and suffering.