On March 5, 2016, plaintiff Shaun Anderson, a partner in a car repair shop, was visiting a home in Ramona that he and his wife were looking to purchase. The home was owned by the Woodward Family Trust. While inside the property, Anderson went upstairs to look at the balcony and then attempted to walk back down the spiral staircase. As he went from the third to the second step, he tripped and fell. He suffered an injury to his right leg. Shaun Anderson sued Marcia Anderson (no relation), individually and as trustee of the Woodward Family Trust. Mr. Anderson claimed the owner of the home was liable for the dangerous condition of the staircase and that Ms. Anderson, as an individual, failed to inspect the staircase or otherwise mitigate the dangerous condition. The complaint was later amended to include products liability claims against M Cohen and Sons, the fabricator who had built the staircase. Mr. Anderson alleged that the stairs were defectively designed and manufactured. M Cohen and Sons filed a third-party complaint against David Kniff, who was believed to be the person who installed the stairs. However, Kniff was dismissed from the case before trial once it was determined that he was not the installer. Mr. Anderson claimed that there was an improper height differential between the third and second steps, which caused him to fall. He specifically stated that there was a bigger drop than necessary between the two treads and that the first step was too close to the ground, which constituted a building code violation. He also claimed that the stairs were not properly slip resistant. The plaintiff’s construction defects expert opined that the treads of the staircase were not wide enough to support Mr. Anderson’s foot. Specifically, the expert testified that the depth of the tread was only 7.25 inches and that building codes require the depth to be 7.5 inches. The plaintiff’s human factors expert opined that spiral staircases, in general, are dangerous and that the defendants should have included some kind of warning on the steps. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that M Cohen and Sons should have included a warning on the stairs when they were manufactured and that Ms. Anderson should have warned potential buyers about the stairs when she listed the home for sale. Counsel also argued that that Ms. Anderson was liable for allowing the dangerous condition to exist on her property and for failing to have the staircase properly inspected. Defense counsel maintained that no warning was necessary because spiral staircases have been in use for hundreds of years. M Cohen and Sons’ counsel contended that M Cohen and Sons had offered Ms. Anderson’s parents, the original owners of the home, the chance to buy tread covers for the stairs, but they had declined to do so. Counsel also argued that the improper height differential was not a manufacturing or design defect and that, instead, it was caused by the unidentified person who installed the staircase. Ms. Anderson’s counsel argued that Ms. Anderson had no reason to suspect that the staircase was dangerous, as no one had slipped on them in the past, and that a lay person would not know about a possible defect in the tread depth. Counsel for both defendants argued that building codes did not require the stairs to be slip resistant. The defense’s retained architect opined that the stairs were not defective. The architect also opined that the plaintiff’s expert had improperly measured the treads and that the correct measurements showed the treads were at the proper depth., Shaun Anderson was placed in an ambulance and transported to a Scripps Health hospital, where he was diagnosed with a torn quadriceps tendon in his right leg. He was treated and discharged home. A few days later, he went to a different hospital and underwent surgery to repair the tear. Mr. Anderson was then released the following day. After the surgery, Mr. Anderson required a brace on his leg for several months. He also underwent around eight months of physical therapy. His treatment concluded in January 2017, but he continues to perform home exercises to strengthen the tendon. The plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon opined that Mr. Anderson was at an increased risk of re-injury to the quadriceps tendon. Mr. Anderson had to miss three weeks of work following the fall and then had to leave early other days in order to make his physical therapy appointments. He claimed that he has lingering pain in his leg as a result of the accident and that when he returned to work, it was harder for him to bend under the cars he was working on. He also claimed he would not be able to work for as long as he had in the past, so he would not receive future bonuses. He further claimed that he could no longer go boating or fishing due to his injury. In addition, Mr. Anderson claimed that, as the man of the house, he was supposed to fix things around the home and maintain the backyard, but that his injury diminished his capacity to perform some of his duties. Mr. Anderson sought recovery of $137,000 in past lost earnings. He also sought recovery of past medical expenses, future lost earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. His wife, Holly Fairchild Anderson, presented a derivative claim seeking recovery for her alleged loss of consortium. While it was agreed that Mr. Anderson took time off from work after the surgery, defense counsel argued that there was not sufficient documentation of how many times Mr. Anderson left early for physical therapy. Counsel also argued that the future lost earnings claim was purely speculative. The defense’s retained orthopedics expert opined that Mr. Anderson had recovered well from his tear and that the chances of re-injury to the tendon were minimal.