On Dec. 2, 2014, plaintiff Christi Chaffee, 58, a therapist, was returning to the Hilton Orange County/Costa Mesa hotel from an airport. As she exited the hotel’s park and fly bus with a friend that rainy day, she slipped and fell on a walkway in front of the hotel. Chaffee injured her right wrist. Chaffee sued the owner/operator of the Hilton Orange County/Costa Mesa, Ashford TRS CM, LLC. Chaffee claimed that the area of the walkway where she fell was too slippery and that its slope was too steep. The plaintiff’s forensic safety expert performed testing on the walkway and opined that it was not slippery, as it exceeded a coefficient of friction of 0.50. However, the expert opined that the walkway was a part of an exit system and that its slope exceeded the appropriate 8.33 percent grade allowance under Chapter 33 of the Building Code. When coupled with the fact that the ground was wet due to the rain that day, the expert determined that the walkway was a dangerous condition and suggested that there should have been a placement of signs that stated, “Slippery When Wet,” and handrails in the area of Chaffee’s fall. Defense counsel contended that the area of the walkway was not dangerous. Specifically, counsel argued that the walkway was not slippery and that its slope was within the appropriate allowance of the Building Code. Through the testimony of the defense’s engineering expert, defense counsel disputed Chaffee’s assertion that the walkway was a part of an exit system and argued that a slope not exceeding 12.5 percent was appropriate. The defense’s expert opined that the slope, at all points measured, did not exceed the threshold and that the ground, even when wet, was sufficiently slip resistant. In addition, defense counsel was critical of the plaintiff’s expert’s suggestion of placing signs and handrails, as the ground was not too slippery and as Chaffee did not require or indicate a need for the use of handrails., Chaffee sustained fractures to the radius and ulna of her right dominant wrist. Her friend took Chaffee to the hospital, where it was attempted to manually mobilize the fractures. An additional attempt to reset Chaffee’s bones was attempted by her regular provider. Ultimately, on Dec. 23, 2014, Chaffee underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of her right distal radius. About 11 months after this surgery, Chaffee’s hardware was removed. Chaffee did not work for the six weeks following the incident and thereafter, returned to work on a reduced work schedule. She claimed that it was difficult for her to open the heavier locked doors at the hospital where she worked. She also claimed she had difficulty playing tennis, gardening, and doing yoga. Chaffee sought recovery for past medical expenses and future general damages. The parties stipulated that plaintiff’s past medical expenses were approximately $26,000. Chaffee sustained fractures to the radius and ulna of her right, dominant wrist. She was taken by a friend to a hospital, where it was attempted to manually mobilize the fractures. An additional attempt to reset Chaffee’s bones was attempted by her regular provider. Ultimately, on Dec. 23, 2014, Chaffee underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of her right, distal radius. About 11 months after the surgery, Chaffee’s hardware was removed. Chaffee did not work for the six weeks following the incident. She ultimately returned to work on a reduced work schedule after the hardware was removed. However, Chaffee claimed that it was difficult for her to open the heavier locked doors at the hospital where she worked. She also claimed she had difficulty playing tennis, gardening and doing yoga. Chaffee sought recovery of approximately $26,000 in past medical expenses, which was stipulated to, and an unspecified amount of general damages for her past pain and suffering. She also initially sought recovery of future medical costs and damages for her future pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Chaffee’s claims as to the need for future treatment and as to her lost income, noting that Chaffee produced no documents evidencing her alleged lost income. The defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that all of Chaffee’s treatment was appropriate, including having the hardware removal. However, the expert opined that Chaffee would not require any further care and that Chaffee would be able to continue with her activities with minimal to no pain or discomfort. Since Chaffee did not have a medical expert, she ultimately agreed with the defense’s expert orthopedic surgeon and dismissed her claims regarding future medical costs and future pain and suffering.