On April 22, 2012, plaintiff Julie Anderson, 46, a homemaker, was participating in a women’s league hockey game at the Los Angeles Kings Valley Ice Center, in Panorama City. While she was skating after a puck, Anderson twisted her left leg. Anderson had not signed a waiver that would have released the rink from liability for the incident. Anderson sued the operator of the ice center, P.I.M. Inc., doing business as Los Angeles Kings Valley Ice Center Inc.; the company’s owners, Scott Floman and David Serianne; and the national governing body for the sport of ice hockey in the United States, USA Hockey Inc. Floman, Serianne and USA Hockey were dismissed for cost waivers prior to trial. Thus, the matter only continued against P.I.M. Inc. Anderson claimed that when she was skating after the puck, her skate blade got caught on a portion of the hockey rink’s boards, specifically the yellow kick plate found at the base of the board. Thus, she alleged that she twisted her left leg after catching her skate blade in the kick plate’s holes. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the kick plate was damaged, such that large holes were present that were a danger to skaters. Counsel noted that the condition was acknowledged by both the plaintiff’s and defense’s experts, the defendant’s employees, Anderson’s teammates, and the game’s referees. Plaintiff’s counsel called current and former rink employees who testified that the ice center did not maintain the kick plates, nor did it replace the damaged ones, as required. Counsel also contended that the ice center had no policy in place to address such damage and that to the extent there was a policy, it was not followed. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the P.I.M. Inc. was negligent. In addition, counsel argued that Anderson did not assume the risk of injury as a result of the incident, as the ice center had increased the risk of injury normally inherent in the sport of hockey by not maintaining the rink’s boards in a reasonable fashion. Defense counsel argued that Anderson’s fall and resulting were not caused by the condition of the ice center’s admittedly dangerous boards, but rather due to Anderson catching an edge or falling due to contact with another player. Counsel also argued that the ice center’s conduct did not increase the risk of injury to Anderson and that Anderson assumed the risk of injury by participating in a sport where falls are common., Anderson sustained a spiral fracture of her left tibia and fibula. She also claimed that she had sustained an aggravation of a cervical disc herniation. Anderson was subsequently transported by ambulance to UCLA Medical Center, in Los Angeles. She ultimately underwent four different surgeries on her left leg over the next two years, as well as underwent surgery on her cervical spine. Initially, Anderson underwent an internal fixation of her left fibula, which included the insertion of a rod and screws the day after the incident. Roughly six months later, she had the screws removed and about six months after that, Anderson had a new rod inserted into her fibula as her fracture was not healing. Then, approximately six months after her third surgery, the screws from her second internal fixation were removed. In between her four surgeries, Anderson was, at times, confined to her bed or a wheelchair. Approximately one year after the accident, Anderson treated her cervical disc herniation by undergoing a removal of a cervical disc, as well as undergoing a cervical fusion. Thus, Anderson sought recovery of roughly $121,000 in past medical costs and $500,000 in past general damages for her past pain and suffering. Since she was a married homemaker with an 11-year-old son who attended school, she did not make a claim for lost earnings. She also did not claim the need for future care. Defense counsel did not dispute the nature and extent of Anderson’s leg fracture, the associated treatment for the fracture, or the cost thereof. Although defense counsel acknowledged the need for the cervical surgery and the reasonableness of the associated bills, he argued that the neck surgery was not causally related to the subject fall.