On Dec. 3, 2012, plaintiff Louise Golshan, an unemployed 72 year old, was attempting to move a shopping cart that was located in front of her parked vehicle in the parking garage of the Palazzo Westwood Village, a mixed-use property in Los Angeles. As she attempted to maneuver the shopping cart down the passenger side of her vehicle, she tripped and fell backward over a displaced parking wheel stop. Golshan claimed that she injured her head and aggravated her prior neck and back condition. Golshan sued the believed maintainers of the property, Hodes Parking Inc., Casden Glendon LLC (doing business as Palazzo Westwood Village), and Casden Properties LLC (also doing business as Palazzo Westwood Village). Golshan alleged that the defendants failed to properly maintain the parking garage, creating a dangerous condition. Hodes Parking settled prior to trial, and Casden Properties LLC was let out of the case. Thus, the matter continued against Casden Glendon LLC only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Casden Glendon was negligent for using wheel stops in the parking garage and for the placement of the wheel stops, which straddled two parking stalls and lacked contrasting paint. Counsel also contended that the parking garage was improperly inspected and maintained, thereby creating a dangerous condition. Casden Glendon’s counsel contended that the parking garage was reasonably safe, as the use of wheel stops was an approved method of traffic control in parking garages per the city of Los Angeles’ Municipal Code § 12.21A(1)(c). Counsel also contended that the parking plan, which included the use of unpainted wheel stops straddling two parking stalls, was approved by the city of Los Angeles’ Building and Safety Department. Counsel further contended that Casden Glendon had reasonable inspection and maintenance procedures in place — including expected daily inspections by a contracted on-site parking garage manager, Hodes Parking, two to three times weekly inspections by a regional property manager, and at least once weekly inspections by an on-site property manager — to identify and correct displaced wheel stops. In addition, Casden Glendon’s counsel noted that Golshan admitted to walking backward without looking where she was going, despite knowing that there were wheel stops in the parking garage from prior visits. Thus, counsel argued that Golshan was at least partially liable for the incident., Golshan sustained blunt force trauma to her head, resulting in a subdural hematoma, which she claimed caused a traumatic brain injury. She also claimed that she suffered an aggravation of pre-existing cervical and lumbar spine issues. Golshan subsequently underwent conservative treatment, which included physical therapy and injections to her neck and back. However, she ultimately underwent a three-level cervical laminectomy and fusion on Feb. 6, 2016. Golshan claimed that she continues to suffer from vertigo, post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depressive disorder as a result of her head injury and that she suffers from chronic pain as a result of both her head injury and spinal condition. Thus, she alleged that she will need ongoing 24/7 care due to her cognitive issues, chronic pain, post-traumatic stress, and major depressive disorder for the remainder of her life, which was estimated at 14 years. She also alleged that additional cervical and lumbar surgery will be necessary. As a result, Golshan sought recovery for her past and future medical costs. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future pain and suffering. Counsel for Casden Glendon contended that the diagnostic imaging revealed no trauma to Golshan’s cervical and lumbar spine and that Golshan suffered from back and neck complaints for 40 years before her fall. Counsel also contended that lumbar surgery was first recommended in 2008 and that, based upon the testimony from Golshan’s treating doctors, the cervical surgery was necessary as a result of the natural progression of Golshan’s pre-existing cervical stenosis, and not due to trauma. As to Golshan’s head injury, defense counsel argued that the subdural bleed was minimal, at 2- to 3-millimeters, and did not cause any brain damage. Thus, counsel argued that, per Golshan’s treating neurosurgeon, Golshan was expected to make a full recovery within two to three months and that the alleged residual cognitive dysfunction was from pre-existing chronic pain conditions and psychological issues. During jury deliberations, the parties established a $900,000/$175,000 high/low agreement, with the amount to be adjusted based on the finding of liability.